Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 15th December, 1950, for the Christmas Recess—met at Half-past Two o'Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

British War Pensioners, U.S. and Canada

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions if he has any information to give as to the living standards of British war pensioners in the United States of America and Canada; in how many cases he has made grants to meet hardship caused by devaluation; and what is the average grant.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Isaacs): The information I have assures me that the living standards of the vast majority of these pensioners are good. I am satisfied that everything possible is being done, in co-operation with the local administrations, to give assistance where it is needed. One hundred and eighty grants have been made to meet hardship caused by revaluation. The grants are necessarily limited to the amount of the reduction in the value of pension and

allowances resulting from revaluation; the average weekly rate is between two and three dollars.

Sir I. Fraser: Could the new Minister, to whom I wish success in his office, publish a report to this House on his predecessor's visit showing in detail how these men are getting on and showing also a comparison between their conditions and those of American and Canadian men who are similarly disabled?

Mr. Isaacs: I promise the House that I will certainly give that matter sympathetic consideration.

War Widows

Mr. Odey: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the increased cost of living, he will now review the scale of pensions for war widows.

Mr. Isaacs: I am advised that this is one of a number of matters relating to the war pension provisions which are regularly reviewed by the consultative machinery existing in my Department for that purpose. I shall take the earliest opportunity of making myself fully acquainted with these matters.

Mr. Odey: When these matters are next reviewed, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these pensions were last considered in 1946, when there was an increase of 2s. 6d., and that in five years of Socialist misrule the value of the pound—

Mr. Speaker: Allegations are not supposed to be made in supplementary questions.

Tricycle Garages

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Pensions what is the cost to his Department of each garage supplied for the housing of an all-weather tricycle.

Mr. Isaacs: The cost to my Department varies according to the individual circumstances and I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, write and give some details.

Mr. Greenwood: Could my right hon. Friend satisfy himself that his Department is doing everything possible to get value for money, as some of these structures are very shoddy indeed?

Mr. Isaacs: So far as I am aware, my Department are doing the best they can for the pensioners, and if there are any cases of inferior materials being provided I shall be glad to have particulars, and to look into them.

Mr. Wood: Can the Minister say how many garages have been supplied compared with the number of all-weather tricycles?

Mr. Isaacs: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Overseas Units (Strength)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether all units and formations on occupation duty overseas are up to full strength and complete as regards armament and equipment.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): It would not be in the public interest to give this information.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is commonly reported that units in Germany, at any rate, are considerably under strength, and that they are being further depleted by being called upon to supply drafts for other stations abroad, and will he give this matter his very urgent attention?

Mr. Strachey: I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should not necessarily give credence to these reports.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these reports are being made by officers—and not junior officers—of the Forces stationed in that country?

Battle Training

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for the carrying out next year of more collective and battle training by all troops, and in particular by those occupying the Canal Zone in Egypt.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Constabulary

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will increase the numbers of his Department's constabulary as a safeguard against the outbreak of fire where valuable material is stored.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. In order to promote this object, pay increases have recently been authorised for the War Department constabulary, and more married quarters are becoming available.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a serious aspect of this shortage of men has been the fact that it has been impossible for them to inspect the inside of the buildings with anything like regularity, and that therefore a fire could start and be unobserved for some time before anybody was aware of it?

Mr. Strachey: We do, of course, wish to increase the numbers of these constables.

Home Guard

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state his proposals for the organisation of the Home Guard by battalions or otherwise; whether battalion areas will be the same as those of the last war; and whether detachments will be formed as in the last war for duty with anti-aircraft guns.

Mr. Strachey: It is proposed that, in the event of an emergency, the Home Guard would be organised in much the same way as it was in the last war. Details have, however, yet to be settled and battalion areas cannot yet be stated. One of the possible roles of the Home Guard will be to supplement the antiaircraft defences.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that improvisation never produces efficiency, and would it not be better to organise in quick time


and before an emergency arises, if there is to be an efficient Home Guard when the time comes?

Mr. Strachey: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence announced, it is not proposed to raise the Home Guard before an emergency, for reasons which the Minister gave and which were strongly supported by his military advisers.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that the lack of a clear announcement about the Home Guard is having a most prejudicial effect upon recruitment for Civil Defence?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot agree that my right hon. Friend's announcement was unclear.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What does my right hon. Friend mean by an emergency? Is it a war? Why not use plain words?

Mr. Strachey: For the simple reason that I am not willing to commit myself that in no circumstances would the Home Guard be raised before the actual outbreak of war.

Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister say whether the equipment and arms are ready for this body when it is incorporated?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot add to what the Minister of Defence has said.

Troops, Korea

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities for leave and rest, in Japan or elsewhere, are available to British troops who have been fighting in Korea; and whether a local overseas allowance is payable to them in such circumstances, and in what currency.

Mr. Strachey: Arrangements have been made for the use of a British Commonwealth Occupation Force leave hostel near Tokyo, and British soldiers on leave from Korea are already using these facilities. The inclusive cost at the leave hostels is reasonable. I am satisfied that the Commander in Korea will submit recommendations for an overseas allowance should he consider it necessary.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for War what special provision he made to ensure that the troops in

Korea had a good Christmas dinner bearing in mind that many newly-formed units are short of unit funds.

Mr. Strachey: The usual cash grant of 9d. a head toward the cost of providing extras for Christmas dinner was made to the British troops in Korea. In addition, a special grant of £2,000 was authorised from War Office non-public funds for distribution at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, British Commonwealth Occupation Force, Japan, with the object of assisting units having insufficient regimental funds. Good and varied supplies were made available by N.A.A.F.I. to all units.

Brigadier Clarke: Is the Minister aware that there was considerable apprehension at only 9d. being allowed, and great satisfaction that the £2,000 did help to give them a good dinner?

Major Legge-Bourke: Did they have plenty of nuts?

Anti-Aircraft Command (Re-equipment)

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent Anti-Aircraft Command is now being re-equipped with anti-aircraft devices developed since 1945.

Mr. Strachey: A programme for the re-equipment of Anti-Aircraft Command with modern weapons is being implemented. It would clearly not be in the public interest to disclose details of the stage reached in this programme.

Mr. Watkinson: Will the Minister give the House a little more definite information, which I think he can do within the bounds of security, bearing in mind that developments in modern aircraft have made all our last war anti-aircraft equipment completely out of date? Will he not at least commit himself to the extent of showing some sort of urgency in this matter?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. We regard this re-equipment programme as being of the greatest importance.

National Service Men (Certificate A)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the value


of the possession of Certificate A to a young man when called up for National Service in the Army.

Mr. Strachey: Men who have obtained Certificate A (Parts I and II), or Certificate A (Part I) combined with Certificate T, before being called up for National Service in the Army, are normally placed in a special squad, the members of which are constantly watched with a view to their being trained for a National Service commission. Subject to the requirements of the Army, they may join the corps or regiment of their choice.

Mines, Trimingham

Mr. Gooch: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will have removed from the cliffs at Trimingham, Norfolk, the mines which were placed there nearly 10 years ago, and thus enable residents, fishermen and visitors to use Trimingham beach again.

Mr. Strachey: Falls of cliff have buried these mines to a depth beyond the range of mine-locating equipment. The nature of the soil makes it impossible to use earth-moving equipment to reduce the depth of overlay. Washing away the soil by water jets would be equally impracticable. I therefore regret that it is physically impossible to remove these mines.

Mr. Gooch: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that the people of Trimingham have been pretty patient, and will he have another look at this matter?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly, but we are advised that it just is not technically practicable to remove the mines.

International Relations (Educational Courses)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War the extent of, and the number of, people employed in the educational courses organised in the Army for the study of Communist ideology and tactics.

Mr. Strachey: No specific courses on this subject are organised in the Army. The hon. Member may have in mind a recent five-day course on international relations organised by the London Services Education Committee, under the

title, "The Communist Attack in the Contemporary World."

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Secretary of State for War give the House an assurance that these courses will not be used for Communist propaganda, at which he was in the old days a first-class adept?

Mr. Speaker: These personal matters are really out of order in supplementary questions.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I have the words here. Imputations and insinuations are not allowed at Question time and are very much to be deprecated.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of order. It is a plain statement of fact. He was a Communist propagandist.

Mr. Speaker: We will pass from that to the next Question.

Divisional Strength

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the present divisional strength of the British Army.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12th September last.

Sir H. Williams: My Question relates to now and not to the situation last September, so may I have an answer with regard to the present situation?

Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member will look at the Prime Minister's statement, he will see that it relates to the aim of the present rearmament programme, and for security reasons I cannot go further than that.

Sir H. Williams: As I understand that security reasons did not make it impossible to say a few months ago that it was the equivalent of six and a half divisions, why cannot we be told now whether there is any change?

Mr. Strachey: The Prime Minister said that we were to have 10 Regular divisions and 12 Territorial divisions.

Injuries Compensation (Form O.1811)

Mr. John Hay: asked the Secretary of State for War why solicitors are not included in the list of signatories who can witness Army Form O.1811, Life and Earnings Certificate, in respect of compensation allowances for injuries received at War Department establishments.

Mr. Strachey: This list already includes ministers of religion, magistrates, doctors, officers, civil servants, bank managers, certain members of the police force and postmasters. When the form is reprinted, I will, however, include solicitors.

Re-enlistment Bounty

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War why service with the Royal Marines does not count for payment of bounty on re-enlistment for short-term engagement.

Mr. Strachey: Re-enlistment bounties were designed to attract into the Regular Army men with previous experience which would be of immediate use. They are consequently limited to men with at least two years' previous service in the Army who satisfy certain conditions as to rank and trade classification or who are already serving in the Army on short-service engagements at the time of re-enlistment.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the similarity of training between Marine and Army personnel, could the Minister look at this matter again?

Mr. Strachey: I am always willing to look at it again, but we think that the ex-Marine will probably be required to re-enlist in the Marines rather than in the Army, though, of course, we welcome him in the Army. But the special purpose of these bounties was to attract men of special experience to the Army.

Sporting Event (Stewards)

Mr. Garner-Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions during the past 12 months Army personnel have been used to control crowds at weekend and midweek sporting events, respectively.

Mr. Strachey: Once. At the request of the police, 160 soldiers were permitted in their capacity of private citizens to act

as stewards to help in controlling the crowds at the Arsenal versus Carlisle football match on Thursday, 11th January.

Casualties, Korea

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for War to state the casualties suffered up to the latest available date by British troops in Korea, killed, wounded and missing, respectively.

Mr. Strachey: The total British Army casualties sustained in the Korean operations up to midnight, 20th January, were 11 officers and 109 other ranks killed or died of wounds, 26 officers and 340 other ranks wounded, and 14 officers and 217 other ranks missing.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether either the Chinese or the North Koreans have co-operated at all in tracing the missing or whether the International Red Cross Organisation is functioning at all?

Mr. Strachey: Very little. The North Korean Government did inform the United Nations in July last that their Army was observing the principles of the Geneva Convention, but they have not permitted any Red Cross representatives to see what is happening.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister tell us whether, with a view to preventing further casualties in Korea, His Majesty's Government are giving full consideration to the recent offer to cease fire?

Mr. Speaker: The Question asked only for the total number of casualties and did not ask about other matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY

Training

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to call up Territorial units for an additional period of training during 1951.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister say whether he is quite certain, in giving that answer, that it will not be necessary to call up the Territorial Army for additional training this summer?

Mr. Strachey: It is not proposed to lengthen the period of Territorial camps from 15 days—the usual period.

Mr. Vane: Is it intended to call up officers on the Territorial Army Reserve?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot make any statement on that subject today.

Transport

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements exist for the transport of Territorials residing in rural areas to and from their depots for training where there is no suitable public transport.

Mr. Strachey: In these circumstances the transport held on charge by the Territorial Army unit can be used for the purpose of conveying men to and from Territorial Army centres. In addition, men who use private cars to attend Territorial Army centres when public transport is not available may claim motor mileage allowance.

Mr. Profumo: Is the Minister aware that the majority of the people to whom I am referring cannot afford their own private cars, and that the point of this Question is whether there are in the Territorial Army any motor cars or vehicles which can carry out the duties to which has has referred?

Mr. Strachey: As I replied just now, the vehicles held under Territorial Army charge can be used for this purpose. Some units may have more vehicles than others. We cannot generalise on that.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Lake District

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when he proposes to designate the Lake District a national park.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): The National Parks Commission hope to make the designation order this month. Twenty-eight days must then be allowed for objections, which I must consider before confirming the order.

Hemel Hempstead (Employment)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what steps are being taken to provide employment for residents in the Hemel Hempstead satellite town.

Mr. Dalton: Hemel Hempstead is a new town, not a satellite town. The present programme for factory development, building operations and provision of services ensures employment for all workers who will become resident in the new town during the next three years.

Mr. Russell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these steps will be adequate when the movement of population to the new town becomes large? Will there be any employment for civil servants?

Mr. Dalton: I should like to see more civil servants move out to new towns, and I hope that in due course some will so move. Plans are being examined. As my answer said, I am satisfied that for the next three years we have covered all the employment required. To see beyond three years at present is doubtful crystal-gazing.

Purchase Order, Colchester

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what were the reasons for confirming the Central Land Board (Cambridge Road, Colchester) Compulsory Purchase Order, 1950.

Mr. Dalton: Because I was satisfied that it was expedient in the public interest that the Central Land Board should acquire this land for the purpose stated in the Order and that they were unable to do so by agreement on reasonable terms.

Mr. Alport: Will the Minister explain what "public interest" means in this case, when the matter concerns purely the private interest of an individual?

Mr. Dalton: In these cases the members of the Central Land Board have to ensure that landlords do not charge too much for land.

Boring Tests, Congleton Area

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will make a statement on the results


of the boring tests with regard to the proposed new town near Congleton.

Mr. Dalton: Six borings have been made. These and earlier borings show that there is rock salt to the south of Congleton, but not to the north.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these boring tests have taken place for nearly two years and, in view of the situation, would it not be better to drop these tests and give the people of Congleton the additional houses they so badly require?

Mr. Dalton: There will not be any more tests. I am satisfied with those we have had.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

No. 2, Park Street

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Works what is his authority for the sale of intoxicating liquors to members of the public at 2, Park Street, W.1.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): The sale of intoxicating liquor at No. 2, Park Street is undertaken by the Crown. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the Park Street policy in this House on 23rd October last.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman stand by the assurance which he gave on 7th November to one of my hon. Friends, that Crown privilege would be used only until an application to the justices could be dealt with at the forthcoming February Brewster Sessions, and will he also say whether the doctrine he has expounded covers sale by the contractors and not by the Crown before 1st November last?

Mr. Stokes: No. The whole object of the exercise is to save taxpayers' money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly. The House will surely be aware of the necessity to have some sort of establishment of this kind, and what I am attempting to do is to make both ends meet. We are considering an application for a licence. I am in consultation with the Catering Trade on that subject.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that

liquor is sold under no form of licence? Is that a very straight way of trying to make both ends meet?

Mr. Stokes: It is a perfectly straight way to come to this House and state what we are doing. If the hon. Member wants to know, we are paying a contribution in the normal form, as if we had a licence.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the last part of my supplementary Question as to whether it is not a fact that up to 1st November the sale was not by the Crown but by the contractors, and whether he is contending that the Crown privilege covers that?

Mr. Stokes: I have not been briefed on this, but I think I am right in saying that up to 1st November the sale was under a special licence, a canteen licence, and was only to those persons who were authorised to use it and did not admit the public at all.

Carlton House Terrace (Model)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works whether he will exhibit a model of the proposed reconstruction of Carlton House Terrace, including the opening and surface walls of the proposed ramp leading from Waterloo Place; the model to cover a large enough area to show the scale of the new buildings in relation to other buildings in the immediate neighbourhood; and whether he will also exhibit the architect's drawings.

Mr. Stokes: A model of the proposed reconstruction of Carlton House Terrace has not yet been made, but I propose to have one made and to exhibit it as the hon. Member suggests. I understand that it will take a considerable time to construct the model, but meanwhile I will arrange for the architect's drawings to be exhibited in the Members' Tea Room.

Mr. Keeling: Will the model comply with the suggestions made in the Question?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, certainly, as far as I have studied them.

Road Repairs, Regent's Park

Mr. John Hay: asked the Minister of Works when the road improvement works to the Outer Circle, Regent's Park, will be completed.

Mr. Stokes: Road repair work in the Outer Circle should be finished early in March.

Mr. Hay: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that traffic passing from the north and accustomed to using the Outer Circle has for some months past been diverted into Park Road, with consequent tremendous congestion late in the evening?

Mr. Stokes: I know, but we were unfortunate; work was started in the last days of August and then, while part of the road was opened up, there were considerable downpours of rain and the road had to be left until it had dried out. We are being as quick as we can.

New Foreign Office (Plans)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works whether he knows that the plans of the proposed new Foreign Office substitute two pedimented features for one in the facade overlooking the Mall and therefore do not bear out his assurance that Nash's facade is preserved; whether he is aware that the plans ignore the advice of the Crown Lands Advisory Committee that the height of the terrace should not be raised; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Stokes: The architect's drawings show the Nash pediments removed but I propose to follow the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission and leave the pediments in place until the new building has been completed. It will then be decided whether they ought to be retained. I am aware that the Crown Lands Advisory Committee said that the height of the buildings in Carlton House Terrace ought not to be extended. We have, however, consulted the Royal Fine Art Commission, who approved the architect's plans, proposing a small increase in height, subject to further consideration of the pediments.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that the scheme has been widely condemned by the better newspapers?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, but I am bound to say that none of the newspaper reports I have read bears any relation to the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

Lamps, New Palace Yard

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Works whether he will restore the balloon lamps in New Palace Yard.

Mr. Stokes: No, Sir. It is proposed to replace the lamp standards surmounting the piers of the railings round New Palace Yard by stone caps, in accordance with a design which has been approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission.

Terrace Lamps

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Works if he will arrange for the lamps on the terrace to be lighted during the period of the Festival of Britain.

Mr. Stokes: I am not satisfied that Members will necessarily like this, but if representations are made to me through the usual channels, I shall be happy to consider the matter in consultation with Mr. Speaker.

Brigadier Medlicott: Leaving on one side the imputations in the Minister's reply, is he aware that these lights formed for many years an agreeable feature of the London scene? Surely we are not so hard up for electricity, as has been suggested, that we are unable to spare the small quantity needed for this purpose.

Mr. Stokes: The amount involved is nothing. It is really a matter of the convenience of Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Caithness and Sutherland

Sir David Robertson: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the large number of registered unemployed people in Caithness and Sutherland; that the percentage of 9.6 is almost four times the average for Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the situation.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am concerned at the high rate of unemployment in Caithness and Sutherland. As the hon. Member is aware, I am in close touch with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for


Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade about the position. Every effort is being made, with the assistance of the hon. Member, to improve the employment prospects of the area.

Sir D. Robertson: Will the Minister bear in mind that men are rotting in idleness, some of them year after year, while essential work on houses, roads and water supplies is being held up by capital cuts designed to conserve labour?

Mr. Bevan: Yes. I intend to make a special inquiry into the matter. We are all anxious that men should not be unemployed unnecessarily in any part of the country.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that there are many thousands of acres in these two counties which need bringing back into production? Could he not use these men who are unemployed to bring those acres back into production?

Mr. Bevan: We are hoping to repair the neglect of past decades.

Factory Inspectors

Dr. Hill: asked the Minister of Labour the full establishment strength of His Majesty's Inspectorate of Factories; the exact number of inspectors actually engaged in England, Scotland and Wales in inspection now, disregarding any inspectors seconded to or engaged in other work; the number of competitions for new entrants held this year, and the number appointed and in the job as a result of those competitions; and the losses this year, in terms of resignations, retirements and deaths.

Mr. Bevan: The figures required by the hon. Member are: Full establishment strength, 379; number of inspectors actually engaged on inspection, 305. There were three competitions between December, 1949, and December, 1950. Number of inspectors appointed and working from the first two competitions, 15. The result of the Autumn, 1950, competition is still awaited. Wastages in 1950 were: 11 resignations; 7 retirements; 2 deaths.

Dr. Hill: Bearing in mind that the shortage of inspectors is some 74 in a total establishment of 379, will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, consider

what steps should be taken to recruit suitable persons to this important branch of work?

Mr. Bevan: I am doing so.

Capenhurst (Recruitment of Workers)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is a notice in Merseyside employment exchanges that labour for Capenhurst can only be recruited through usual exchanges and cannot be taken on on the site; that the Capenhurst project was to relieve unemployment on Merseyside, and that there is concern on Merseyside that a sub-office has been opened by the Chester exchange on the Capenhurst site, and an average of 12 men per day are being taken on through that sub-office; and if he will secure a uniform method of recruitment.

Mr. Bevan: The arrangements for recruiting workers for Capenhurst are specially designed to give a preference to Merseyside, and 93 per cent. of the vacancies have been filled by Merseyside men. Vacancies notified to the sub-office on the site are passed to the Merseyside employment exchanges, and the purpose of the notice, to which my hon. Friend refers, is to save men the expense of a personal application on the spot.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is not the assumption by the men on Merseyside? Will he make certain that there is not preferential treatment of people being selected specially and being sent to the sub-office at Capenhurst rather than of people being recruited definitely from Merseyside exchanges?

Mr. Bevan: As my hon. Friend will see from the figures I have given, there is no need to be apprehensive about this matter. I understand, however, that the notice at the exchanges is not very well worded, and we are going to alter it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Class Z Reserve

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that many Class Z Reservists feel that an injustice will be done to them if men who stayed at home in the last war are once more reserved:


and if he will arrange for married Class Z Reservists to take over the civilian jobs of those who were previously reserved.

Mr. Bevan: I am aware that there is some feeling of the kind the hon. Member describes. It would be quite impracticable to adopt the suggestion in the second part of the Question.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that the wives of these Class Z Reservists feel they are likely to be subject to grave injustice? Will he give special consideration at least to the men who served five or six years abroad? Will he apply the principle of equal shares in this great matter?

Mr. Bevan: I think the hon. Member had better await the announcement about the Class Z Reservists before forming any conclusion.

Mr. Osborne: When will that be?

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we can expect that announcement?

Mr. Bevan: Before long, I hope.

Mr. Lyttelton: Would the right hon. Gentleman be a little more precise, as this is a matter of great public interest?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, it is a matter of great public interest because a great deal of misrepresentation has been made, and if some newspapers exercised more restraint—[An HON. MEMBER: "And some Ministers."]—many citizens of the country would be less disturbed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would my right hon. Friend consider, owing to the obvious reluctance of the Class Z Reservists, making service purely voluntary?

Mr. Bevan: That is impracticable.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to ensure that men in Class Z Reserve are not called up for further training until all men of comparable age who are fit for service but have never actually served in the Forces have first been called up for training.

Mr. Bevan: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion would be practicable.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Class Z men have very strong feelings about this matter, and will not he give special consideration to this suggestion before a decision is made?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. and gallant Member will examine the implications of his suggestion, he will see that it is utterly hopeless to carry it out.

Personal Case

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour under what circumstances it was found possible to place Mr. Kenneth J. Allchin, of 103 Kenton Lane, Kenton, Middlesex, in medical grade one when he was known to be suffering from deafness which has subsequently resulted in his being discharged as unfit from the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Bevan: I am making inquiries, and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Tuberculosis Patients (Swiss Sanatoria)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now report on arrangements made for securing places in Swiss sanatoria for Scottish tuberculosis patients.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): My right hon. Friend is satisfied, after a visit of inquiry by clinical experts, that a number of beds are available in Swiss sanatoria which afford an acceptable standard of medical care and are otherwise suitable. Legislation would ultimately be necessary, and the financial implications are now being considered in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Stewart: Can the hon. Lady tell the House roughly how many beds she fancies will be occupied by Scottish people as a result of this proposal?

Miss Herbison: From an examination by these experts, we understand about 300 beds.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In that case would it not be possible for the hon. Lady to expedite the arrangements being


made? Even if legislation had to be arranged, there would be general agreement on all sides of the House that no delay should be allowed in making more beds available for Scottish tuberculosis cases.

Miss Herbison: I can assure all hon. Members that this matter is being hurried as quickly as possible, and that it is being given very quick consideration by the Chancellor at the present time.

Miss Irene Ward: Is the same argument going to apply to English as well as to Scottish patients?

Miss Herbison: That is a question for the English Minister.

Mr. Speaker: This is a Question about Scotland, and we cannot now deal with England, too.

Special Housing Association

Sir William Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many

SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION


Area
Number of Houses completed during 1949
Number of Houses completed during 1950
Number of Houses in process of being erected at 31st December, 1950


Clydebank*
…
154
112
102


Cumnock
…
—
—
—


Ayr County—


Landward Districts of Old and New Cumnock†
…
26
194
398


Dundee*
…
86
120
32


Clackmannan County—


Landward District of Tullibody†
…
200
136
126


Greenock*
…
266
90
38


Glasgow*
…
342
44
350


Edinburgh‡
…
2
7
1


* General needs.


† Special programme for miners.


‡ Demonstration and experimental houses.

River Pollution (Recommendations)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee on River Pollution, Command Paper No. 8111, in the present Session.

Mr. T. Fraser: My right hon. Friend has asked the Associations of Local Authorities and other interested bodies for

houses have been erected in 1949–50 or are in process of being erected by Scottish Special Housing Association Limited, in Clydebank, Cumnock, Dundee, Tullibody, Greenock, Glasgow and Edinburgh; and on what principle he proceeded when deciding the areas where the need for these houses was greatest.

The Joint Under-Secretary, of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): As the answer to the first part of the Question involves figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
As regards the second part of the Question the broad principle is the magnitude of housing requirements in relation to population.

Sir W. Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any of the figures he is going to circulate is nil?

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir.

Following is the statement:

their observations on the recommendations in the Report, and he will consider whether, and on what lines, legislation should be introduced when these consultations are completed.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does the hon. Gentleman expect it will be possible to introduce legislation this Session—that is, before the end of July?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, if there are no material obstacles in the way in consequence of these consultations.

Breeding Ewe Subsidy

Major McCallum: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if a decision has been reached regarding the rate of hill sheep breeding ewe subsidy for the current year; and on what basis it is to be paid.

Mr. T. Fraser: No, Sir. The question is under consideration. Payment of subsidy will be calculated on the number of eligible sheep in the flock at 4th December, 1950.

Major McCallum: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the hill farmers have been through a very bad summer and that already this winter there has been very hard weather, and that if he can make a statement as early as possible he will enable the hill farmers to make plans well ahead?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, consultations are going on just now, and we shall make a statement as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL STAFF (UNION MEMBERSHIP)

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister if he has any further statement to make on the results of the discussions between Ministers and the Durham County Council on the question of the production of evidence of union membership.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the result of the discussions between His Majesty's Government and the Durham County Council on the subject of the latter's decision to make membership of a professional association or trade union a condition of employment by it.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The answer is "No, Sir."

Miss Ward: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give complete satisfaction so that this question can be settled once and for all? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House has been extremely patient? Is it not time that he was in a position to say what the Government are going to do in this matter?

Mr. Morrison: I am always in hope of giving complete satisfaction, but the crucial test in this is whether this policy

begins to be implemented with consequences of which the Government ought to take notice. That stage, I gather, is not yet reached.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the procedure of requiring evidence of trade union membership is being carried out at this moment or not?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — REARMAMENT PROGRAMME

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the steps now being taken to expand the rearmament programme; and whether industry is now fully informed as to the part which it must play.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply.
As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced at the meeting of the North Atlantic Council at Brussels in December that this country would undertake a defence programme accelerated beyond that which had previously been proposed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not yet in a position to make a statement on the details of that accelerated programme, but hopes to be able to do so in a very short time.

Mr. Watkinson: After six weeks of complete indecision, is that really the best answer the Lord President can make to the House? Will he not even at this stage give the House and the country some of the leadership for which they are looking to this Government?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Member that the matter is under consideration, but this is a matter of very, very great importance with considerable economic repercussions, and if the Government are taking reasonable time in order to consider their decision, I do not think that that is unreasonable. As I have said, my right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Lyttelton: Is the Lord President not aware that there is a widespread feeling in industry that not even orders have been laid or plans made? When are the Government going to come to a decision in this matter?

Mr. Morrison: That question ought to be put on the Paper.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if he yields to the request which is made to him to give the country the leadership it demands, that leadership will not be given in the direction of extended armaments but of reduced ones?

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very little information on this subject has reached the public, and that there is great anxiety about the extent of the orders which have been placed and the time lag involved after the orders have been placed? In view of the great anxiety on this subject, will he or his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister make an early statement to the House?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, with regard to the second part of the Question, that there are firms in Birmingham and the Midlands whose livelihood is about to be taken away by the order of the Ministry of Supply relating to base metal supplies, without their being given an opportunity to tender for rearmament work?

Mr. Morrison: I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend will take notice of that point. It is perfectly clear that there cannot be substantial rearmament without certain economic adjustment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Sir W. Darling: asked the Lord President of the Council why the sale of magazines is forbidden on the Festival site, with the exception of the magazine published by the Council of Industrial Design, entitled "Design."

Mr. H. Morrison: I assume the Question refers to the South Bank Exhibition. The hon. Member has been misinformed. Magazines—and books and newspapers—will be on sale at the three bookstalls in this exhibition.

Sir W. Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that this change of decision has taken place since this Question was put down?

Mr. Morrison: I have great respect for the hon. Member, but even I would not attach all that importance to his putting down a Question.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now consider postponing the Festival of Britain in view of the international situation.

Mr. H. Morrison: The international situation calls for a mood of seriousness and responsibility combined with confidence and pride in our national heritage. I am sure the House will agree that it would be a heavy discouragement to all who believe in the British way of life and encouragement to those who wish us harm if we were to abandon the Festival when preparations for it are successfully reaching completion. Postponement at this late stage would not be a practicable possibility. What is needed is that we should show confidence in our own country, which is going to make this Festival into something which will inspire the whole free world as well as our own people.

Brigadier Clarke: Does not the Lord President appreciate that a large number of people in this country feel that this is not the time, when our men are being killed in Korea, for a Festival, and will he appreciate the situation as it now exists and not as it was when he thought of the Festival?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON AIRPORT (FOG DISPERSAL)

Mr. Perkins: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give the House an opportunity to discuss the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Stroud and Thornbury and other hon. Members, concerning the need for a fog dispersal device for London Airport.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am afraid that I cannot at present find time for the discussion of this Motion.

Mr. Perkins: Does not the Lord President consider it extremely important that London Airport should be equipped with every possible safety device known to science, and should be the most up-to-date airport in the world?

Mr. Morrison: My impression is that London Airport is very well equipped with the most modern equipment. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter by debate, I suggest that he tries his luck in the ballot for Private Members' Motions.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Equal Pay (Deputation)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the results of the deputation he received on the subject of equal pay for equal work in the Civil Service.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): I am considering the representations made by the deputation, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Miss Ward: Would I be right in assuming that at that time the right hon. Gentleman believed that there was a case, such as the one put forward by the Civil Service Association, to consider?

Mr. Gaitskell: The Government accepted, some time ago, the principle of equal pay, but took the line that it must depend on the economic position as to when it should be introduced. The economic position is not very easy.

Miss Burton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in view of the large number of women who will be called upon to help in the rearmament programme, it is not essential that the Government should reach a decision on this matter at an early date?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that question has very much relevance to the Civil Service.

Museum Grade (Remuneration)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in carrying out the recommendations of the Chorley Committee on higher Civil Service remuneration, he will give an undertaking that he will not worsen the relative position of certain classes of the Civil Service, such as the museum grade.

Mr. Gaitskell: The increases recommended by the Chorley Committee were not the same either absolutely or propor-

tionately at all the salary levels concerned and therefore involved some changes in the relative position of one level compared with another. But the same improvements have been given to officers previously drawing the same rates of remuneration.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that assistant keepers in the museum grade have recently been refused a salary increase given to other civil servants of equivalent rank, and does he not think that it is particularly bad in Festival year to give the impression that we do not attach great importance to the work done in our galleries and museums?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that the hon. Lady should draw that special deduction. If she will let me have particulars of the case which she has in mind, I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Information Division, Treasury

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes in personnel, cost and functions will result from the conversion of the Economic Information Unit into the Information Division of the Treasury.

Mr. Gaitskell: None, Sir. The Press notice made clear that the new title was adopted because it described more accurately the existing status and functions of the Division.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that it will not cost any less?

Mr. Gaitskell: In fact the cost of the Unit has been reduced in recent years.

Purchase Tax

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the recent 20 per cent. increase in the wholesale price index and the pegging of retail cash margins, he will review Purchase Tax rates so as to insulate the cost of living against increased Purchase Tax due to rises in commodity prices.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider remitting the Purchase Tax on shinty sticks.

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Squadron Leader Burden: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to see what can be done about this in the forthcoming Budget, because if it is possible to peg cash margins it should be possible to peg Purchase Tax and assist in keeping down the cost of living?

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. and gallant Member can be assured that we shall take everything into account.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the old Highland game of shinty, when pursued with its customary vigour, often involves the breaking of a number of sticks, and that the high cost of replacement has the danger of impairing this vigour, and will not he take steps to reconsider the matter so that he does not emasculate this game?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the information, and I can assure him that whatever my decision, it will not be with the intention of emasculating a Scottish game.

Sterling Balances (India, Pakistan and Ceylon)

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the rearmament programme and the agreements with India, Pakistan and Ceylon, whereby the flow of unrequited exports to those countries will be considerably increased, and thus make it impossible to attain the increased export target of £300 million, if he will reopen negotiations with the Governments named, in an effort to reduce the flow of unrequited exports to the minimum.

Mr. Gaitskell: These agreements which are satisfactory to ourselves and to the other three Governments involve a reduction in the rate of releases of the sterling balances of the countries concerned in comparison with the last few years, and I have no intention of reopening negotiations.

Squadron Leader Burden: Surely, since this agreement was announced, there has been a suspension of Marshall Aid. We hope that the rearmament programme will be boosted so as to be satisfactory in view of the circumstances of today. If that is

the case, will it be possible to obtain the export figures, which have been set as a target by the Government, without looking into this matter again?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think that in the present political situation, apart from anything else, it would obviously be a very unwise move to attempt to reopen the negotiations.

Hire-Purchase (Credit Restrictions)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of the Treasury with regard to bank advances intended to finance hire-purchase agreements; in what circumstances such advances are restricted as being inflationary and what steps are taken to control the use of funds for such purposes.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my answer of 5th December to the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). Both my predecessor and I have been content to leave to the discretion of the banks the application of the policy which they have been asked to pursue.

Mr. Marlowe: Is it not the case that the banks have had a directive from the Treasury asking them not to advance money for hire-purchase agreements, and will he inquire why the British Electricity Authority has completely flouted Government policy in this matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Electricity Authority's Report was that, while their cash sales had been reduced considerably, their hire-purchase contracts had increased enormously?

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. and learned Gentleman's question was about hire-purchase credit advanced by the banks. If he wants to ask a question about the British Electricity Authority, which is not necessarily connected with the banks at all, perhaps he will put it down.

Mr. Marlowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in a matter of this kind there is one law for the banks and another for a nationalised industry?

Mr. Gaitskell: We are discussing credit policy in one case, and, in the other case, we would be discussing something quite different.

Commander Noble: The right hon. Gentleman told me before Christmas that he would look into this matter. Can he say whether any progress has been made?

Mr. Gaitskell: I have discussed this matter with the Governor of the Bank, and I am satisfied that the request to the banks has been faithfully carried out.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate cost to the Treasury in the first year and in subsequent years, respectively, if post-war credits were made repayable to women, irrespective of age, on becoming widows.

Mr. Gaitskell: I regret this information is not available.

Mr. Smith: Could not my right hon. Friend get this information by giving his people the job of digging it out?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum has been, put aside for the repayment of post-war credits.

Mr. Gaitskell: The law provides for the repayments of post-war credits now being made to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The total amount to be repaid in the current year was estimated at £17 million.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in its six o'clock news bulletin on 5th January, the B.B.C. reviewed the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and stated that £17 million had been paid out during the past year from the sums set aside for that purpose? Was that done with his or the Treasury's authority?

Mr. Gaitskell: Presumably it was set aside out of the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do the post-war credits refer to the last war or the next one?

Savings

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that rising prices harm the National Savings Campaign by deterring potential subscribers; and whether he will, accordingly, float a loan with interest payments

and eventual redemption based on a cost-of-living sliding scale.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.

Mr. Smith: Is the House to infer from that negative answer that, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, it is beyond the wit of man to devise a financial system that shall not be fraudulent?

Mr. Gaitskell: I certainly would not wish to give any such impression to my hon. Friend, whose experience in this matter and devotion to this subject are well known to all of us.

Mr. Smith: Does my right hon. Friend not understand that there is a reluctance on the part of savers to part with their money, although they would wish to do so, when they know perfectly well that their money will decline in value, whichever party is in power, unless there is an alteration in the financial system?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am a little surprised that my hon. Friend, whose reputation for inflationary policies is so well known to us, should be so bold in speaking about the danger of rising prices.

National Insurance Fund

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the increase in the cost of living and the desirability of increasing the basic rates of pensions and other benefits fixed in 1946, he will give directions under Section 39 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, for an immediate review of the financial condition of the National Insurance Fund, instead of awaiting the quinquennial review in 1953.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the interim report which the Government Actuary is required to present under Section 39 (1, b) of the National Insurance Act, 1946, and which will be published shortly.

Mr. Fletcher: When my right hon. Friend says that it will be published "shortly," does he mean it will be published within a week or two?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir.

Sir I. Fraser: Does that mean that a general review will take place this year?

Mr. Gaitskell: It simply means that the report will be published.

Estate Duty

Mr. G. P. Stevens: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the hardship caused when a large block of shares is placed upon the market, he will cause Estate Duties to be levied upon the value of shares as at date of death or the price realised within 12 months of the date of death, whichever is the less.

Mr. Gaitskell: All property passing on a death falls to be valued for Estate Duty purposes as at the date of the death; I do not think that a one-sided option, such as the hon. Member suggests, could be justified.

Mr. Stevens: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the sudden coming into being of a large seller is bound to depress prices?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am aware that difficulties sometime arise in these cases, but I am also clear that the Inland Revenue take into account the difficulties in reaching a final assessment.

Mr. De la Bère: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have a reply to Question 64, as I did not realise it had been called?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was either not here or did not rise in his place. I am afraid that we cannot go back.

Trading Position (Dollar Area)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was the United Kingdom trading deficit with the dollar area for 1950.

Mr. Gaitskell: I must ask the hon. Member to await the full analysis of the United Kingdom's trading position in 1950, which will be shown in the next Balance of Payments White Paper.

Mr. Osborne: Will the Chancellor tell the House whether or not we had a deficit with the United States, including the amount we had free from America by way of Marshall Aid?

Mr. Gaitskell: Disregarding Marshall Aid, I think I can say that the deficit, although it existed, was substantially smaller than in the previous year.

Mr. Osborne: Irrespective of Marshall Aid?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir.

Postage Stamps (Proceeds)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the method whereby it is estimated how much of the proceeds of the sale of postage stamps is used for Inland Revenue purposes.

Mr. Gaitskell: Before the war, these estimates were based on periodic statistical investigations by the Post Office. Owing to shortage of manpower it has not been possible to repeat these investigations, and since 1940–41 the basis adopted has been to take the 1939–40 figure and adjust it by reference to the changes each year in the receipts from the Stamp Duty on cheques.

Income Tax

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Income Tax per head of the population collected in the latest year for which the statistics are available in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively.

Mr. Gaitskell: In 1949–50, the Income Tax collected in England and Wales per head of population was £30, and in Scotland £20. Separate figures for Wales are not available. These figures are not necessarily an indication of the Income Tax contributed by England and Wales, and by Scotland respectively, since the income of a person resident in Scotland may be charged to tax under an assessment in England or Wales, or vice versa.

Continental Passengers (Customs Examination)

Mr. Deedes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to improve customs arrangements at the continental ports during Festival of Britain year he will arrange, as an experiment, for all baggage except registered baggage to be checked on the trains between the port and London.

Mr. Gaitskell: This idea has been fully examined quite recently by the Customs and railway authorities and others concerned with the passenger traffic. There is general agreement that in the particular


circumstances it would serve neither the convenience of passengers nor the need for effective and economical control.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why this could not satisfy the needs of travellers? Could we have some reason?

Mr. Gaitskell: It would not enable the train to get away any faster. The House will probably agree that it is not necessarily for the convenience of passengers that their baggage should be investigated in the middle of a train journey.

Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is done on the Continent and that most passengers find it most convenient?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is done when passengers do not have to get out of the train but when people arrive in this country they have to get out of a boat and into a train.

Pound Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the pound sterling at the latest available date, as compared with the pound sterling in July, 1945.

Mr. Gaitskell: About 15s. 10d., as compared with 20s. in 1945.

Wing Commander Bullus: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to arrest this most depressing trend?

Mr. Gaitskell: I would hesitate to say when I could arrest it, but I am trying to do it as best I can, particularly through these international organisations which deal with the prices of raw materials.

Mr. Osborne: On what date was that figure calculated?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think it was August, 1950.

Mr. Osborne: The position has deteriorated, then, very largely since that time.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAW MATERIALS (PURCHASE AND ALLOCATION)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer through which agency he informs the United States authorities

of Britain's raw material needs, and co-ordinates with them the purchase and allocation of such materials.

Mr. Gaitskell: We are in close and continuous touch with the United States Government on all raw material problems. We also participate in any discussions of raw materials through our membership of N.A.T.O. and O.E.E.C. I hope that the Governments concerned, working together in the international commodity groups whose establishment has been proposed by the Government of the United Kingdom, United States and France, will be able to find ways of dealing successfully with these difficult problems.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend say whether steel is one of the materials under consideration, and what representations he has made in Washington concerning the unilateral repudiation by the Americans of contracts for large quantities of sheet steel essential to the motor industry and the defence programme?

Mr. Gaitskell: The problem of steel is being considered in O.E.E.C., because consumption in Europe is primarily from production in Europe.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that these contracts were for forward shipments of sheet steel from America, and the fact that these contracts have been repudiated is bound to have a damaging effect both on the motor industry and on the defence programme?

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend had better put down a Question to the Minister of Supply concerning the repudiation of contracts.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made towards setting up a Combined Purchasing and Commodity Board within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is not at present contemplated that such a board should be set up within the framework of N.A.T.O.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend say when the new board that is envisaged will be functioning?

Mr. Gaitskell: I thought I made it plain to my hon. Friend that setting up such a board as suggested in the Question was not at present contemplated. Perhaps my hon. Friend is thinking about the Defence Production Board which is in process of being formed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (JOURNALISTS)

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of full-time journalists employed by the Central Office of Information on 1st January, 1950, and on 31st December, 1950, and their total emoluments; also the total amount paid during 1950 to free-lance and part-time journalists.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): On 1st January, 1950, 76 full-time journalists were employed at an annual cost of £63,761, and on 31st December the same number at an annual cost of £61,662. The total amount paid to free-lance and part-time journalists during the year was £22,705.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWSPRINT SUPPLIES

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any further statement to make as to the prospect of increasing newsprint supplies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): I understand that the Newsprint Supply Company has succeeded in placing sufficient orders in Canada and elsewhere to make it reasonable to hope that the present level of distribution can be maintained. But, before consumption can be increased, it will be obviously necessary to build up our stocks to a more normal level.

Wing Commander Bullus: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the position is any better today than it was three months ago?

Mr. Rhodes: Yes, the supply position for the country is more definite.

KOREA

Mr. Churchill: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about the present position in the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in respect of its policy towards China.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. Before dealing with the position which has been reached in the Political Committee of the Assembly, I would ask the permission of the House to summarise very briefly the events which have taken place since I made my statement on 14th December.
Hon. Members will recall that on my return from Washington I reported to the House on the very full and useful discussions which I had had there with the President of the United States. We agreed that aggression must be halted, but equally that the conflict should not be extended; and that our long-range objective was to reach a stable position in the Far East.
This in effect was a re-statement of the policy which has been followed by His Majesty's Government in regard to the Far East ever since we assumed office. It can perhaps be best defined as applying certain basic principles to the facts of the situation. In connection with China, it appeared to His Majesty's Government that the basic fact to he faced was the emergence of a new Government which was in effective control of the mainland territory of China. Chinese intervention in Korea produced a new and most serious situation which jeopardised the attainment of the objectives of the United Nations in Korea and threatened the success of our efforts to confine the conflict to Korea and to reach a stable position in the Far East.
His Majesty's Government welcomed the initiative taken by a number of Asian and Middle Eastern States in December to bring about a cease-fire in Korea in order to explore the possibilities of a negotiated settlement. Their first proposals were rejected by the Chinese People's Government on 22nd December on the grounds not only that the ceasefire principles were unacceptable in themselves, but that the Cease Fire Committee was an illegal body because of the exclusion of representatives of the


Central People's Government from the United Nations Organisation.
In the face of this rejection, which coincided with strong military pressure endangering United Nations forces in Korea, obviously a new and very dangerous situation was created. Despite the rejection of their proposals for a cease-fire, the Cease Fire Committee displayed the utmost patience and perseverance and proceeded to draft a set of general "principles" which in their view might form the basis for a settlement in the Far East.
Before however these "principles" had been tabled at the Political Committee, Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth met in London in accordance with longstanding arrangements. It was, I venture to think, of the greatest value that at this difficult stage in the development of the Far Eastern situation, Prime Ministers of the free countries of the British Commonwealth representing so many races and points of view, should have met in London for the purpose of discussing international affairs and the maintenance of world peace.
In point of fact, much of the time of the Prime Ministers was given to the affairs of Asia, and I personally found it encouraging and stimulating to note the unanimity of purpose which animated us all. We all recognised that the problem of peace was that of removing the causes of war, of easing tension and promoting understanding, of assisting those less-developed nations which needed our aid, and of being at all times willing to discuss our differences
We agreed also on the urgency and importance of promoting a satisfactory settlement in the Far East and expressed our earnest hope that the fresh approach which had then been made in the First Committee of the Assembly might lead to a settlement of outstanding issues in the Far East. This fresh approach referred to the principles for a settlement which had been tabled by the Cease Fire Committee by an overwhelming majority, though I regret that the Soviet delegate and the delegates of the satellite countries, despite all their protestations about peace, saw fit to vote against these principles. They were then referred to the Central People's Government of China.
The Chinese reply was received on 17th January. It seemed to His Majesty's Government that the reply, though most disappointing, did not finally close the door to negotiations. It seemed, however, to us that before we could decide on the interpretation to place upon the Chinese reply, it would be necessary to try to elucidate it, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs accordingly on 20th January instructed His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Peking to put to the Chinese Government certain points in their reply and to request an explanation. The most important issue was the reference to a cease-fire and on this point the Chargé d'Affaires, who was received by the Chinese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs on 21st January, was informed that as the Chinese Government saw it there should be two steps in regard to concluding the war in Korea and reaching a peaceful settlement of the Korean problem. The first step should be a cease-fire for a limited period which could be agreed upon at the first meeting of a conference of the powers and immediately put into effect so that negotiations might proceed.
The second step, in the Chinese view, was to discuss a number of problems, among them the withdrawal of foreign, including Chinese, troops from Korea, proposals for the future of Korea itself, the withdrawal of United States armed forces from Formosa, and other problems concerning the Far East. At the same time the Vice-Minister made it plain to the Chargé d'Affaires that the Central People's Government of China must be given their rightful place in the United Nations organisation.
This then is the point which we have reached in regard to Korea. We must decide whether the Chinese reply genuinely holds out any prospect of a peaceful settlement of the Korean problem and of relations between China and the rest of the world on a basis in harmony with the great principles of international conduct enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. At the same time it is necessary to study the Chinese reply in the context of what they are in fact doing and have done in Korea. Do their actions in Korea support the view that they are prepared to accept normal principles of international conduct?
This is not an easy decision to take. The wording of the Chinese reply, even with the help of the further explanations now given to us, is not altogether clear, and we cannot be certain as to their real intentions. In a situation of this sort it is essential that we should continue to take counsel with our friends. In particular we must give all weight, in this Asian dispute, to the views of Asian countries. As I read it, there is a general feeling amongst the countries of Asia that we must patiently pursue every possibility of a peaceful settlement with China so that the new emerging China may be given an opportunity should she so desire to play her part in the community of nations on equal terms with other members.
These are the considerations which we have in mind in considering what our policy should be in view of the resolution now tabled in the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. For our part we have not lost hope of a negotiated settlement of the Korean war, nor have we lost hope that China may yet be ready to play her traditional part in world affairs and live on friendly terms with other members of the world community. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the United Nations should not at this stage take a new and important decision. The resolution at present before the Political Committee of the Assembly seeks to condemn Chinese actions in Korea as the acts of an aggressor, to invite the Collective Measures Committee to study what additional measures can be taken against China, and to set up a committee of good offices.
It follows from what I have said before that His Majesty's Government welcome the proposal to set up a committee of good offices which will provide machinery for exploring every possibility of a negotiated settlement. His Majesty's Government likewise recognise the stark facts of the situation in Korea and agree in condemning Chinese intervention in support of an aggressor which has thwarted and frustrated the purposes of the United Nations. But we do not believe that the time has yet come to consider further measures. To do so implies that we have

abandoned hope of reaching a peaceful settlement, and this we have not done.

Mr. Churchill: While thanking the Prime Minister for the fullness of his reply and for the broad survey, in retrospect, which he has given us, may I ask him to bear in mind constantly the grave dangers which will fall upon us all should any serious divergencies occur between our policy and that of the United States, and should any serious division in the United Nations—

Mr. Ellis Smith: We are not going to be trapped into war.

Mr. Churchill: —be brought about by manoeuvres which are obviously to the interest of Soviet Russia?

The Prime Minister: We have that in mind. It is of the greatest importance that we should preserve unity with the Commonwealth, the United States of America, and with all other peace-loving nations. And we have to be on our guard against attempts to divide us. At the same time, we should never abandon recklessly or thoughtlessly any hope that there may be of a peaceful settlement in which the whole of the world is interested.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the initiative shown by the Conference of Prime Ministers, in which he himself played so notable a part. may I ask him to bear in mind that the overwhelming opinion in this country is that there is nothing whatever in the Chinese claim about Formosa, and about a seat in the Security Council for China, which would justify us in continuing these hostilities?

The Prime Minister: The hostilities do not arise out of the question of Formosa; they arise out of an aggression committed by the North Koreans on the South Koreans.

Mr. Silverman: But will not my right hon. Friend agree that in the stage which the negotiations have now reached, the differences of opinion which make those hostilities continue do not surround Korea so much as Formosa and the Chinese place in the United Nations?

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a general conversation going on, and that is not the business of the House. The business of the House is to hear the Minister move the Second Reading of this Bill.

3.43 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move "That the Bill be read a Second time." This is a short and simple Bill and I do not think it will light any hot fires of controversy. All that may come later, but not this afternoon. Its aim is simply stated: to correct two errors in drafting, which experience and legal advice have revealed, in the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. The Bill is keenly desired by the local authorities regardless of party, and regardless of whether they are urban or rural, and I hope that the House will consent to give it a Second Reading.
The first matter relates to planning permission in respect of war-damaged properties. The enemy air action was not an unmixed curse to us because, here and there, it largely cleared ground which had long been in need of comprehensive re-development. It had been supposed until recently that planning authorities would be able to intervene to prevent the restoration of war-damaged buildings to the exact shape in which they stood previously if, in the view of the local planning authority, such restoration ran counter to their re-development plans. There is no doubt that since 1943, up to 1947, under the Act of 1943 they possessed that power, and it was the intention of all of us that this power should be continued in the 1947 Act. However, we are advised by our legal advisers that in fact that is not so, and that as the 1947 Act stands, planning permission is not required in order to restore a war-damaged building to its pre-war condition so long as any part of that building remains standing, even a few bricks. Obviously this is nonsensical, and it is to prevent this nonsensical result that Clause 1 is drafted.
The second matter relates to the period within which a planning authority can take action against unauthorised development or against any breach of any condition which may have been imposed by the planning authority when the development was authorised. Here again the 1947 Act is defective according to the advice which we have received from the Law Officers of the Crown. In this case I am afraid it was due to a too amiable acceptance of a somewhat plausible-looking Amendment moved in another place—which has its moral.
We are all agreed here that there must be some limit to the period during which an unauthorised developer is left at risk, as it is put. That is to say, there must be some period beyond which the law will not be invoked against him, even if he has broken the law by undertaking an unauthorised development. That is common ground and common justice. Unfortunately the period of four years set in the 1947 Act dates, not as was originally stated in the first draft of that Bill from the date of the breach of planning permission or of any condition attached thereto, but from four years from the date of permission being given.
Therefore, in certain cases, planning permissions are unenforceable under Section 23 of the Act. If, as often happens, a planning permission is given subject to a reasonable condition that a certain use should be discontinued at the end of 10 years, this becomes unenforceable because, as the law now stands, at the end of four years from the planning permission, all power passes away from the planning authority. Therefore we propose to restore the law to what it was before one of my noble Friends so rashly accepted the Amendment in another place, and to what all plain people thought ought to be the law in this matter, namely, that the period of four years shall run from the date of any breach of the condition and not from the date of the permission itself. That deals with Clause 2.
Clause 3 provides that Clause 1 shall apply to Scotland. It is not necessary to provide that Clause 2 should apply to Scotland because the Scottish representative of the Government in another place was more cautious and did not fall into this pit. Clause 4 provides the short Title, and so forth. This is a very simple


Bill, and I hope that the House will agree to the Second Reading.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: The whole House will have noted with interest the recent administrative changes proposed by His Majesty's Government. This is the first occasion when the Minister of Town and Country Planning has stood at that Box with the knowledge that these additional powers are to be his. We commend the bringing together again of the Departments which deal with town and country planning and local government. Many of us on this side of the House, as I dare say hon. Gentlemen opposite, or some of them, have long felt that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning could not fulfil its duties effectively while, for example, the choice and approval of sites for house building remained functions of a different Department. I hope very much that the new administrative arrangements will prove to be satisfactory and beneficial. We can certainly compliment the Minister on the additional powers which he is likely to receive shortly.
I am sure that no hon. Member was surprised when notice was given to introduce a new Town and Country Planning Bill, although I am bound to say that I for one was rather disappointed at this mouse of a Bill which the Minister has produced because I had been expecting and hoping for something very much better. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which we on this side of the House opposed at all stages—[Interruption.] I have taken the trouble to look it up and I see that I voted against it on both Second and Third Readings, and so did my hon. Friends. The Act is fast becoming one of the most unpopular Measures which has ever been passed. The "Local Government Chronicle," in a recent issue, said:
The application of the Town and Country Planning Act must inevitably create opponents as it proceeds. For years we may be able to ignore it; suddenly it hits us and we cry aloud and ask whether there is any justice left.
During the past 12 months the Act has been the subject of an absolute deluge of constructive memoranda from such bodies as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the

Federation of British Industries, the Country Landowners' Association, the Council of the Law Society, and so on. We have reached a stage when it was said in "The Economist" in a recent number:
It is now generally accepted that the financial provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, will not work satisfactorily.
It goes on to make a great many comments which I will not go into now.
When the original Bill was introduced my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), moved a most comprehensive Amendment which expressed clearly the Opposition's criticism of the Bill at that time. It is well worth looking up the terms of that Amendment. I recommend hon. Members particularly those on the other side of the House, to do so because they will see that the passage of time has very much justified the Opposition's attitude at that time. We are still convinced that the law as it stands today is unworkable and unjust, and I cannot help feeling that the new Minister will not be in office very long without coming to the House with a much more serious amending Bill than this one.
As the right hon. Gentleman has told us, the Bill deals with the correction of two faults in the original Act. It was suggested to me that an appropriate Title for the Bill would be "The Silkin (Ironing-out of Bloomers) Bill," but as I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman's sense of loyalty to a past colleague would prevent him from accepting such an Amendment to the Title, I would only suggest to him that it might at any rate have been franker to call this the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill, because it certainly is that.
Clause 1, which, I gather from the Minister, is to reconcile the Act with the General Development Order, 1950, which he made, needs to be included in the Bill because it has emerged that the Order does not come within the powers of the Minister under the Act. I suppose that he has now been advised—I think he indicated it—that planning permission is not necessary for any works of restoration of war-damaged property short of total re-building, and this is naturally causing very great concern among the authorities who are affected. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider


whether in the Clause as now drafted he has not really cast his net too wide. Is it not possible perhaps to distinguish between major and minor works of war damage by specifying a maximum value of work which can be done without permission. That is a matter into which we can perhaps go more fully when we come to the Committee stage. Naturally, I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman necessarily to give an answer on that point this afternoon.
One of the reasons why the Bill is necessary is that the Government refused to allow sufficient time for discussion when the 1947 Bill was going through the Committee stage. We all remember that at that time the pressure on the House of Commons was very great and the Government were forcing through a great deal of legislation. In consequence of that, it is not surprising to find that many mistakes have been made. Clause 2 seeks to cure a defect in Section 23 of the Act. Section 23 is one which the Committee was not allowed to discuss at all. The Guillotine fell and that Clause went through this House without any criticism at all.

Mr. Dalton: It did not go wrong in this House.

Mr. Assheton: The right hon. Gentleman said that something done in another place led to this mistake. All I can say is that if there had been a full discussion of these matters in the Committee of the House of Commons their Lordships would have been in a much better position to discuss the Clause when it came up in another place. It all illustrates the folly of the Government in seeking to rush Measures through Parliament without proper discussion, a folly from which the whole country is now suffering.
These Clauses are a little complicated and on the Committee stage there will no doubt be opportunities for discussing them more fully. We certainly do not intend to oppose the Second Reading today, though, as I have already indicated, the major criticisms by the Opposition of the 1947 Act are in no way met by the Bill. However, I have some hopes that the right hon. Gentleman will take a realistic view of the situation—I think he is a realist—and that he will come forward with some proposals before long.
When the right hon. Gentleman recently made some new regulations he talked about "experiments in freedom." I cannot say that his use of that phrase appealed to the Opposition very much, because freedom is what this country had been accustomed to for many hundreds of years and the experiments in taking away freedom which this Government have made have not been popular. Certainly they have not been beneficial. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman now appreciates that and that he has seen the light. There is a very large body of opinion in this country which is in favour of reasonable town and country planning and I, for one, shall be very sorry if the odium into which planning has been brought by the 1947 Act results in abandoning much for which many people have worked for so long.
There is no doubt that the innumerable controls, regulations and forms which now surround, provoke and deter the prospective developer of land have created a public opinion which says "Away with planning altogether." I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman himself is a landowner or not he certainly had, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, experience in the, management of a great estate. Those who have had personal experience of how this 1947 Act works know very well the appalling sense of frustration which it has created. In order to do the smallest and most innocent development it is now necessary to obtain and fill in at least 12 very complicated forms. If the right hon. Gentleman has any notion, as I think he has, of the effect which a Government form has upon the average citizen of this country, he will understand why that in itself is a great deterrent to development.
I had an example only last week which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. In the village in which I live it was very necessary to find a garage for the district nurse. Owing to the new arrangements made by the Ministry of Health, a district nurse came to live in the village, and there was no garage for her. I was fortunate enough to find a little building with two garages in it. Beside it there was a space in which it is quite convenient to make another garage. Only a roof and door are necessary. Already the walls are there. It is rather an ugly sort of tin-can hole in which much rubbish has been thrown. It is


dangerous to children, which makes it desirable to clear up this bit of untidiness. In order to do that very small operation of development, namely, to put one little roof and a door on to this building, permission has to be obtained from the rural district council, permission has to be obtained from the county council as planning authority for the area and four forms had to be filled in. A settlement has to be made with the Central Land Board as to whether there is to be any development charge. A building licence may have to be applied for, in case the cost turns out to be more than £100, and as timber has to be used we may have to get a licence for that. As the building is on a road, there has to be consultation with the Ministry of Transport.
Could not the Minister try to coordinate all that work? Could he not try to avoid that mass of forms? Perhaps he could so arrange things that only one form has to be filled in, and the various departments and authorities could deal with it. At any rate, it would get all the information on to one form, and perhaps the local authority could copy that form several times and circulate it. Then one might be able to make some progress. Unfortunately that is not a matter which this Bill will cure.
I have not spoken, and I do not propose to say a word, about the terribly serious deterrent represented by the development charges themselves, except to remark that those development charges are tending to freeze the land in its present use because any change in use involves a payment. To freeze development in this country in a pattern which is appropriate to the past rather than to the future cannot be a sensible thing to do. No more frustrating legislation has been passed than the 1947 Act. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that unless the Government are willing to admit the mistakes of the past and to bring forward a radical amendment to the present Measure, we shall, when we come into office, be obliged to make the most drastic changes in it.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I hesitate to intervene in a debate upon what is recognised to be an extremely complex problem, and I do so only because the Bill raises one or two points which I think it would be quite wrong

for us to overlook and upon which I should be glad of elucidation. This is a very small Bill and, having regard to the new wide range of the powers and responsibilities of my right hon. Friend—on which I congratulate him—it is likely to be the smallest Bill that he will sponsor for a considerable time.
When I inquire what this Bill does, I find that it has the effect of making it a development under town and country planning law to carry out the work of making good war damage affecting only the interior of a building or not materially affecting its external appearance. That is what the first Clause of the Bill seems to do. It does not, as I understand the matter, attract a development charge because it is a Third Schedule development, but this kind of operation, as a result of the Bill, will in future require planning permission. Up till now it has not required planning permission.
That is a change which may have quite important consequences in practice, and ought to be investigated. Permission is already granted by the General Development Order for the making good of war damaged property. Such permission is granted automatically by the Order, except in cases where the Minister has made a direction. It seems that the only relevance of Clause 1 of the Bill arises where the proposed development is to take place in an area affected by a direction to the Minister. That shows how very limited is the practical effect of Clause 1.
The inquiry that one feels obliged to make then is: What will be the effect on the owner of war damaged property if the property is situated in an area subject to the direction of the Minister, and if permission to develop is refused, as it can be refused under the Bill? Certain quite important consequences may result in that case, and I should have thought it was desirable for us to consider the point on Second Reading. It will certainly need careful consideration in Committee. If permission to carry out war damage repairs is refused and if the building in respect of which permission is refused is compulsorily acquired, the consequence, as I understand it, if war damage compensation has been assessed on a cost-of-works basis, will be that the owner of the property will have his compensation adjusted in accordance with Section 53 of


the 1947 Act, which makes provision for that adjustment in such cases. If, however, the compensation to which an owner of property is entitled has been assessed upon the basis of a value payment, no provision whatever is made for the adjustment of that compensation. It is possible that the Bill as it stands leaves a lacuna in the law of compensation—and upon this I may find agreement from all sides of the House—which will need to be filled.
Let me deal with the practical case. A man may have sustained war damage to, for example, his residence. He has had his war damage compensation assessed upon the basis of a value payment and is entitled to a value payment. Until the Bill was introduced he was entitled to proceed with making good the war damage to his property without permission; now, however, he is required to ask permission, which may be refused. In that event, what happens to his compensation, his value payment having been calculated and assessed upon the assumption that he would be permitted to make good the damage?
As a result of the Bill, that man may not be permitted to make good the damage. His position is distinct from that of the owner of property whose compensation has been assessed upon a cost-of-works basis, because no specific provision is made for him either in the present Bill or in the 1947 Act. These points, upon which, as I have said, I seek elucidation, seem to me to be points of serious substance, upon which I should be grateful for some assistance from the Government Front Bench.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Molson: The speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) illustrates that even so short a Bill as the present one is not entirely free from difficulty. If I may try to give the hon. Member a reply—I do so only in order that I may be corrected if I am wrong—I will explain the position as I understand it. Certainly, it was the intention of the Committee upstairs, during the passage of the principal Act, that war damage repairs of an extensive kind should be brought within the control of the planning authority or of the Minister. The machinery which was devised appears at first sight to be somewhat cumbrous.
Under the General Development Order, all rebuilding or repairs of war-damaged property was freed from this planning control. Within that general freedom it was further provided, under Article IV of the General Development Order, that in cases which were known under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, as "areas of extensive war damage." where it was intended that there should be redevelopment on a large scale, the Minister was to have the power to issue directions so that that kind of rebuilding work, in which it was hoped that reconstruction would be on a much better planned basis than was the old destroyed property, should come within the planning permission control either of the local authority or of the Minister.
What has happened is that no one had foreseen that the effect of Section 12 (2, a) of the existing Act would be interpreted so as to exclude from the power of planning control under the Statutory Instrument, everything that could fairly be described as repairs arising out of war damage. The answer to the hon. Member is, I think, that all that the Bill will do for the future, from the date when it was first published, is to make the law what it had been intended by Parliament that it should be. Permissions which were given in the past will continue to be valid, but any rebuilding which was begun before the publication of this amending Bill in defiance of a planning authority will be permitted. For the future, therefore, the law will be what it had been believed and intended to be at the time of the passing of the original Act.
The hon. Member referred to compensation. As I understand it, because this is brought under paragraph I of the Third Schedule to the principal Act, where the aggrieved owner calls upon the local authority to acquire the property on the ground that the refusal of permission, or the granting of permission subject to restrictive conditions, has deprived him of the reasonable user of the land, the compensation which will have to be paid to him in respect of that land will take into account the refusal of the permission to develop.
If my remarks are not altogether lucid, the fault is no doubt partly my own, but this is an extremely difficult and complex matter and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will deal with


it at some length. The Minister was lucid in what he said, but this is a much more difficult Bill to understand that its brevity would suggest, and there are matters connected with the granting of permission and with compensation which might with advantage be set out a little more fully than the Minister has done.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary an important question. In all this town and country planning legislation, even after one understands how the machinery is intended to work, it is a little difficult to know exactly how it will be put into operation. For that reason I ask these questions. Since the purpose of this amending Bill is to make the law what it was believed to be and what the Minister and local authorities have tried to administer, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House, first, whether the procedure has worked satisfactorily so far? At first sight it appears a little cumbrous to make a general development order exempting all repairs of war damage from planning permission, and then to issue directions in order to bring again under planning control such repairs to war damaged property as appear to the local authority or to the Minister to need permission. Will he please deal with that point and, before we re-enact the old procedure, will he explain how it is working and whether it is working satisfactorily?
Secondly, I ask him to give a little information about the way in which those directions have been issued. Do they only apply to geographical areas, or do they perhaps also apply to the amount of expenditure upon some particular matter? It would appear that it might be reasonable to say in a direction that no expenditure exceeding £50,000 should be made without planning permission, but if it were only a matter of £50 or £500 it might be so minor a matter that it was not desirable to have any need for permission of that sort.
Thirdly, may we know to what extent throughout the country the procedure which it was intended to enact has, in fact, been applied? For example, when was it that the Law Officers of the Crown suddenly warned the Minister of Town and Country Planning that he had not the powers he thought he had? How did this matter arise; was there a case in court in which it was found that the Minister had not the powers?
As to the general principles of the Bill, I am sure we shall all do our best so to amend it if need be as to make town and country planning legislation more satisfactory and less onerous than it has been. I would repeat my right hon. Friend's observation that it would have been a little clearer and a little less disingenuous if the Minister had described this as a Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill, because in his introductory remarks he said that the only purpose was to amend the principal Act. I hope we may have an amendment of the title to that effect.
I would draw attention, once more, to the fact that the main Act was subject to the Guillotine in Committee upstairs. There had been no obstruction by the Opposition at that time. Lord Silk in said at that time:
I do not allege at all that there has been any intentional obstruction of the business of the Committee. I make no such allegation and never have made it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 4th March, 1947, c. 182.]
He went on to make the usual complaint that the speeches were longer than he thought was necessary and that arguments had frequently been repeated, but there was no deliberate obstruction on the part of the Opposition. In spite of that, the Guillotine was introduced and it was impossible for the Bill to be fully considered in Committee of the House of Commons.
I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, who referred somewhat disparagingly to the work done in another place, that a very large number of Amendments which the Government discovered were necessary, especially in Clauses which were never properly discussed in Committee of this House, had to be moved as Government Amendments in their Lordships' House. If there was an occasion when a Socialist Peer accepted an Amendment which is now thought to have been unwise, I would also point out that when the Bill came back to this House a number of Amendments considered by the Government to have been unwise were taken out of the Bill. Therefore, this matter, which is now being altered by this amending Bill, was not merely accepted by an insufficiently informed Socialist Peer but, apparently, was regarded as innocuous by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I was a little astonished when I heard the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) talk about inadequate discussion of this important Bill, because my recollection is that my right hon. Friend the Minister opened the discussion with so monumental an oration that it almost rivalled the famous Don Pacifico speech. At the end of it one ought to have been able to say that no schoolboy of 14 in this country should henceforward fail to understand the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. At any rate, one could say that with precisely the same assurance and certitude as Macaulay said that every schoolboy knew who imprisoned Montezuma and who killed Atahualpa.
I am bound to confess to my right hon. Friend, and I hope I shall be forgiven for this regrettable confession, that there have been second thoughts on this matter and the feeling we all had that we fully understood the Bill has not blossomed nor burgeoned with complete certitude in our minds ever since.
The Law Society were good enough to run a series of lectures on the Town and Country Planning Act in various parts of the country. I considered the matter and, as in duty bound, came to the conclusion that it was not a job for a senior partner to attend those lectures. Indeed, I had some difficulty in selecting an appropriate deputy. Finally one of my partners volunteered to go and I say of him with respect and admiration that he went with all the courage and quiet heroism with which the aristocrats went to the tumbrils. He came back looking a little distressed and I asked him if it was possible to prepare a brief summary of what he had learned. He said he would compress it in a sentence: we had to double our insurance against actions for negligence. That prudent step I am happy to say we have taken and up to now that is about the bulk of our progress.
I am quite sure that during his months in office my right hon. Friend has acquired a knowledge of the Act which should be disseminated among those of us who do not share that knowledge and with his gifts of lucidity, I am sure could help us to share it. I had hopes that he would open out a little today and lift for a moment or two, in the interest of clarity,

that iron curtain which separates us from a full knowledge of the highly complicated workings of this Act. It is a little distressing, in a professional office, when no one seems to know the basis of computation of development values at all. We had the whole business of putting forward claims to the Compensation Fund and, so far as I know, nothing has yet been paid, although the fund is over-claimed. Some of us wonder whether the £300 million in the kitty might not be a very great deal better kept in the kitty and a little more thought be put in before parting with it. Rumour has it that there may be other claims on our funds in the near future and I would be very anxious to suggest some alternative measures.
That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is on compensation. It is really a fact, and I am talking quite seriously now, that very often an assessment is made without looking at the land at all, and nearly always it is an arbitrary figure. One gets this impression: someone chooses a figure, someone else says it is not enough so the figure is doubled. It is said "This is not a round figure, let us round it off. It is £450; let us say £500."
They then get a round figure and we start arguing. On that basis the correspondence starts. We offer 20 per cent. Finally, it is agreed at 33⅓ per cent. or 40 per cent. of the original request, which does not look like a really scientific method of working out what is really a matter of some controversy. I have no idea—it may be that that is due to the fact that all my recent time has not been devoted to research—what is coming in and what is due to go out, but certainly most people with experience in this matter are a little alarmed at the very small amount that is coming in.
I remember that one of my optimistic colleagues said "off the record," with pride, when we passed that Act, "We nationalised the land when the Tories were not looking." I did not regard that as surprising; it is the sort of thing that might happen, but I really do not think that we have done so. Honestly, I do not think that the legislation is working well. I hope that we shall have a discussion on this matter today and that we shall get further information.
As we are considering a Bill to amend the Town and Country Planning Act, I would urge upon my right hon. Friend


that it is wise to consider whether it might just be possible that some other Amendments might be desirable. As one who is not convinced on this matter, I suggest that other Amendments might be undertaken by my right hon. Friend's Department, which is now charged with so many other duties. I hope that we shall have a full statement from the Parliamentary Secretary of all the information that is available, and a few promising financial details.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: The Minister said that this Bill was not likely to arouse much controversy. It would be equally true to say that it is not likely to arouse much enthusiasm, as has been clearly shown by the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale). I regret that the hon. Member found it necessary to double the insurance against negligence in his office. I could have suggested to him another course which he could have taken which would have protected him just as effectively and at very much less expense.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: What course?

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member knows quite well.
It is strange that in the case of an Act which has so many defects and which has brought about so much injustice, the Minister should be proposing to amend it only in such very minor matters as those with which this Bill is concerned. One might have hoped that after the experience all over the country since 1947 the right hon. Gentleman would have taken his courage in both hands and set to work to remedy some of those defects in that Act which are so well known to those who have had experience of its practical effect.
Of course, I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to undertake the task of amending the Act in respect of those fundamental matters to which we on this side of the House very strongly object. This Bill, however, did present the Minister with an opportunity of putting right a number of defects, some of them serious, some of them widespread, some of them not so widespread but none the less unjust, which have arisen out of the working of this extremely complicated Measure. Not only has the right hon. Gentleman refrained from taking this course, but this Bill is drafted in such a way that it will

be very difficult for us to propose Amendments at the Committee stage. I see that the Minister nods his head when I say that it will be very difficult for us to propose Amendments at the Committee stage within the bounds of order. He might at least have given us the opportunity of remedying some of the more outstanding defects of this Act, if he himself is not ready to do so.
I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one defect which he might have remedied in this Bill. The House will recall that in that part of the Act which deals with the assessment of compensation for compulsory acquisition a provision was inserted the effect of which is to exclude from the compensation any value in respect of vacant possession of the premises. It may be fairly arguable that in the case of property held for investment that was not unjust, as a temporary measure. I do not necessarily subscribe to that view but I shall not challenge it this afternoon. But the application of that rule to dwellinghouses occupied by their owners produces a result which I am sure the House will feel to be completely unjust, and which I believe was not intended by Parliament at the time when it was enacted.
I invite the House to consider for a moment what happens. It may come as a surprise to some Members to know that if the local authority considers that one's residence or garden will make a suitable site for a school or a street improvement or something of that kind a compulsory order can be made, and it can be acquired by compulsory purchase. Nevertheless that has been the law for some time. This Act has introduced a refinement of that principle which I think is extremely unjust. Not only is a man's home acquired by compulsory purchase but he is paid by way of compensation a sum which is deliberately assessed upon a basis which will be insufficient to enable him to acquire another residence with vacant possession. That is happening all over the country.
I tried some months ago to ascertain from the Minister how many cases there have been of persons being dispossessed of their homes and being paid compensation assessed in that manner. He told me that there was no record at the Ministry. In the case of one very large authority with which I am connected I


know that there have been a large number of cases. I understand that it is contemplated that before long London Airport is to be extended and that a number of dwelling-houses will have to be acquired for demolition in order to extend the runways. I am told that about 250 of those houses are occupied by their owners. Some weeks ago I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation upon what basis it was anticipated compensation would be assessed. His reply was that it would be in accordance with the existing statutes. That means that each one of those persons will, if their houses are required within the next three years, be paid compensation deliberately assessed at a figure which will not be sufficient to enable them to purchase another house with vacant possession.
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will agree that that is a very unjust arrangement. When one looks at the history of the relevant Section, it appears that it was introduced rather late at the Committee stage of the Bill. Protests were made about it being passed on the same morning upon which it was first placed before the Committee. Those protests appear to have been disregarded, and that Section was accordingly passed without this point ever occurring to anyone, so far as I can see.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply to answer these two questions. First of all, does he regard the basis of the assessment of compensation for owner-occupied dwelling houses as a just or an unjust basis; and, secondly, if his answer is that he considers this basis is unjust, whether he will take the necessary steps, either in this Bill or some subsequent Bill, to put the matter right?
I myself have taken such steps as are open to a Private Member to deal with such a matter. There is on the Paper a Motion in my name for leave to introduce a Bill to put this matter right. But I may encounter certain difficulties. As the House will readily understand, there are certain difficulties which a Private Member does encounter when he tries to introduce legislation of this nature. At some stage, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall have to ask for your Ruling as to whether these difficulties are as formidable as

some people consider them to be. But apart from that, if the Minister regards this method of assessing compensation in cases such as those to which I have referred as an unjust method, it would be a simple matter to put right, either in this Bill or some similar Bill. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will give me an answer to my two questions, and that he will give us some assurance that either in this Bill or later on, this particular matter will be put right.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: So far, we have had an extremely interesting debate arising out of the general topic with which this Bill is concerned. I feel that some of the points made by my hon. Friends, and by hon. Members opposite, complaining of the effect of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as it has shown itself in several years' working are entirely justified. Like them, I feel rather sorry that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has not chosen to bring forward a far greater Measure at this time to remedy the manifest injustices and defects which the working of that Act has shown.
This is, no doubt, a very complicated and complex Measure. I have, for example, every sympathy with the partner of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), who was directed to attend lectures on the law on this subject. I can only say that had I been the partner of the hon. Member—which I hasten to assure him for his own assistance that I am not likely to be—I should probably have told him, "You passed the Bill; you tell me what it is all about yourself."
There are two points I wish to deal with by way of observation on the Bill now before us. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton). I am wondering whether Clause 1 is likely to be far more extensive than is really necessary. I am worried about the position of the owner who wishes to do only minor repairs by way of war damage. I can see that where a local authority does not wish completely bombed damaged property to be replaced in its original condition, because they have a plan for the wider area of which that particular site forms a part, there is every reason why they should have the power to withhold planning permission.
As I understand the explanation, that is what the Bill is all about as far as Clause 1 is concerned. It is to give local authorities the power to withhold consent to the development of a site where the provisions of the Bill apply. That is all right so far as it goes. I do not suppose that any of us would object if we were dealing exclusively with buildings which had been almost completely destroyed; where the whole building had been gutted and only the walls left standing. It would obviously be unwise, and, I think, contrary to the interests of the community as a whole, to say that the local authority which has a wider plan for the entire area should be prevented from having a particular building pulled down at some time and the whole site re-modelled.
But if we pass the Bill as it stands what is to be the position of the man who has a building of which only part of the roof and, shall we say, the upper floor is destroyed by a couple of incendiary bombs? Under the Bill it will be for him, if he has not yet done the war damage repairs, to get planning permission before he can do it; and we are thereby giving power to the local authority to stop that man doing a job which might be very necessary.
After all, we have to face the situation that however desirable it may be for a local authority to have the power to plan out the future development and use of areas, it will be quite some time before those major plans can be put fully into operation. I should have thought that in the meantime we ought to do something to make the utmost use which can be made of parts of buildings which have been damaged by bombs but which might be put into useful occupation again. I have in mind particularly cases where the roof and upper floor has been destroyed. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he and his right hon. Friend will consider this point and will perhaps introduce a Government Amendment themselves which, subject to some kind of provision, will exempt from the requirement of obtaining planning permission small repairs to a maximum limit of, shall I say, £250. That would, for example, give an owner power to do internal decoration which may have been destroyed, and which he has not had the opportunity of doing.
My second point arises directly out of the observations made by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). I am very concerned about the position which will arise where the War Damage Commission have agreed to make a cost-of-works payment for the restoration of bomb-damaged property. As I understand, at the moment the War Damage Commission are refusing to make a cost-of-works payment to an owner who wishes to use the money obtained from such payment to do work on a site other than that which has actually been damaged or destroyed. I do not complain about that, except within the context of the Bill; because as I see it if an owner has had property damaged and he has made his claim, and has prima facie the right to a cost-of-works payment, he may, if the Bill becomes law, have to go to the local authority and obtain planning permission to carry out the necessary repairs to the interior of the building.
If a local authority are given power to refuse planning permission, because they happen to have plans for the future development of a bigger area, and, therefore, they withhold permission, as I see it the unfortunate owner is between the devil of the War Damage Commission and the deep blue sea of the local authority. First of all, he cannot get his cost-of-work payment unless he does the repairs, and the local authority may say, "We will not give you permission to carry out work to that particular building."
I see that as a great dilemma, and I hope that it will be considered. I do not think it would be altogether impossible, either by Amendment to this Bill, or in some other way, departmentally, for instructions to be given to the War Damage Commission that such cost-of-works payments as I have in mind should be transferred, at the wish of the owner and under necessary safeguards, to another site or building. I think that is a reasonable point and I can see a certain amount of hardship falling upon an owner if he is left in that position.
I thought that the speech with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill was unusually brief and also con ciliatory. I hope these points will be borne in mind and that perhaps the Government may be able to introduce their own Amendments to meet them.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: In joining with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) in regretting the rather limited scope of this Bill, I should like to discuss a matter which has not come within the scope of our discussion so far this afternoon. I had hoped that this small amending Bill would have done something to make conditions a little bit easier for the industrialist moving a factory who meets difficulties connected with the operation of the Town and Country Planning Act.
I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary is present, because he will remember a case in connection with the Sheerwater Estate, in my constituency. I should like to say how much I appreciated his kindness in dealing with the matter very fully. It is a condemnation of his own Act that although every effort was made to meet the needs of a certain manufacturer it was not possible to find a path through the labyrinthine workings of the Act in order to satisfy the normal requirements of the manufacturer. Incidentally, this has meant at least the temporary loss of a dollar earner to this country.
I had hoped that somewhere in this Measure there might have been something to straighten out the many difficulties which, I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, arise when industrial sites are involved. While I appreciate that some such Amendment cannot now be added, I hope that at least the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will bear in mind the difficulty so that if further Amendments are brought forward this matter may be dealt with. It is the general consensus of opinion that other Amendments may have to be made to the Act, and I hope that this point will be borne in mind.
I should like to explain the difficulty. First, it will be agreed that in industry time is often the essence of a contract. If an industrialist coming to this country wanted to open up a factory to make certain vital products which would earn a great deal of foreign currency, obviously time would be important. In the case in my division it was a Canadian manufacturer who wanted to set up a factory, but time was the essence of the contract, and in matters of town and country planning time means very little when one has to

find the way through the Act. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) who commented on the complexity of the Act. What he said is proved by the fact that although the Ministry and the Parliamentary Secretary did all they could to straighten out this case, the matter went on for many months. In the end the manufacturer decided, temporarily at least, to transfer his activities to Belgium instead of to my constituency, where they would have provided employment for new residents on an L.C.C. estate.
As an example of the absurd way in which the Act works in these instances, I would point out that a portion of that estate had been allocated for small satellite factories to serve the employment needs of the new residents. There was no question that the land was not designated for use by factories. Nevertheless, it was found impossible to give exemption under Section 80, and a development charge of about £4,000 fell to be levied on a comparatively small area of land. Not only that, but the negotiations occupied an enormous time. It was most difficult to get a satisfactory answer as to where the manufacturer stood under the provisions of the Act.
I make a plea that, although the matter cannot be dealt with now, it should be included in further amending legislation if the Act is ever to serve anything like the purpose which it was intended to serve. I wish to register as strong a plea as I can that if further Amendments become necessary the requirements of industry should be considered. As the Minister has already committed himself to making experiments in freedom, perhaps he will make an experiment in streamlining the Act for industry so that industrialists will know clearly where they stand, what the cost will be, how long it will take to get planning permission, and how to find their way through the intricacies of the Act.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies to this brief debate, perhaps he would allow me to make two or three points, as a former occupant of the ministerial office which he now holds. Both the Amendments contained in this Bill are necessary Amendments of the law.


Therefore, I have no doubt that the Bill will receive a unanimous Second Reading. Before I raise one or two questions on each point, I should like to support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton). I should like to say a few words about the powers which will in future be held by the Minister of Town and Country Planning in addition to those which he at present holds.
It would obviously be out of order, nor would it be my desire, to deal with the transfer of powers from the Minister of Health to the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like to say that, while an opportunity will no doubt be given to the House to discuss those transfers in detail, those who are interested, as I am, in town and country planning, will welcome the fact that certain additional powers at present held by the Minister of Health are being transferred to him. I am sure that it was not logical that the Ministry of Health should have had powers under its Acts to choose and acquire the sites for houses, a matter obviously of the greatest interest to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and only as a matter of courtesy be under any necessity of consulting the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
I turn to the changes made by the Bill. Let me take the first change, that which relates to war damage. The first question I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is one which was also put by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). As I understand the first change made by this Measure, it is really to put in order and to give a legal basis for the existing provisions of the General Development Order and Development Charge Applications Regulations, 1950. The Minister said that the local authorities desired and that he needed the power of control which he thought he possessed but which he has now been advised that, without this Measure, he does not possess. My first question is whether any damage has, in fact, already been done which will not be remedied by the Bill which we are now invited to pass. The House would like to know whether in fact, owing to this defect in his powers, the Minister has had to permit anything which, had he possessed the power which he believed

he possessed at the time these Regulations were made, he would never have allowed.
On the question of compensation which was raised by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), I am under the impression that perhaps a more suitable occasion for detailed discussion may be provided during the Committee stage of this Measure. I shall be glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, but I confess that my first impression, confirmed by such inquiry as I made from the right hon. Gentleman's courteous Department by telephone this morning, is that some of the fears expressed by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Edge Hill are not justified. In view of the combined effect of Sections 19 and 53 of the 1947 Act, the position may not be exactly what the hon. Member for Edge Hill feared.
I agree, however, that there will be a further opportunity of discussing that particular matter. I should be bound to support the right hon. Gentleman in seeking to make the first Amendment, because he handsomely admitted that he acquired this power under an Act which I had the honour to help to conduct through this House—the Act of 1943. As the House provided him with this power in 1943, and his predecessor rather carelessly gave it away in 1947, I have the utmost pleasure in helping to give it back to him.
Now I come to the second change, namely, putting right the defect regarding enforcement to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention in his opening speech. We can be certain that here we are in time with our legislative Amendment and that no irrevocable damage can have been done, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take to heart the lesson of how that defect came about. I spoke on the Second and Third Readings of the 1947 Bill, and I served on the Committee which considered it when it was passing through the House, and the section which now contains this blunder was one which we were not permitted to consider at all upstairs. I think the Government themselves now agree that that is so, and that the section required amendment in the House of Lords, but they made a blunder in accepting an Amendment which had certain technical defects.
There is one other matter which I would mention regarding what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for The High


Peak. He suggested an Amendment to the title to include the word "Amendment." I can leave that question with some confidence to the Parliamentary draftsmen, but, with respect, I rather differ from my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak. I think there is some convenience in having a short Title which mentions the subject-matter and the year but does not include the word "Amendment," unless it is really necessary. However, that is a question for the draftsman.
I come now to the only point upon which I have a further suggestion to make to the Government. There will, of course, be certain Amendments which we may put down on drafting and other matters, even with the short title as it stands. There are, however, other matters which I think the whole House would like to put right. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to remember that an Amendment to the short title of a Bill is one of those things which never happen unless the Government ask for it. If they asked for it, I think there would certainly be support from both sides of the House for other amendments of the principal Act. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), who enlivened the House with a witty contribution earlier this afternoon, mentioned how he thought development charges were computed. It is not for me to say whether the hon. Gentleman is right or wrong, but I believe that the Government would be well advised to meet the demand that has been made from the very beginning by the Opposition, that there should be a right of appeal against the assessment of the development charge.
The second example which I would give—and it is something which, at least, we ought all to be able to discuss—concerns the matter that was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson). The Government do not want to incur unnecessary unpopularity, through an injustice in any necessary acquisition of dwelling houses, because of a defect in the 1947 Act. I am sure the Government would be well advised so to amend the short title of this Measure that the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North, could at least be discussed. These are the only observations which I desire to make, and I have no doubt that the House will give the Bill a unanimous Second Reading.

5.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): May I, first of all, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, express appreciation to the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and to the hon. and learned Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss), who respectively opened and wound up the debate for the Opposition, for their very kindly references to my right hon. Friend and to the new responsibilities which have been placed upon him? These kindly remarks are very much appreciated indeed.
There have been only four speeches today which have in any way really dealt with the subject matter of this Bill except for the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), the hon. and learned Member for Norwich, South, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) all drew attention to matters which I suggest, with great respect, have been entirely outside the scope of this Bill. While they are all very important matters, and while there are many other important matters which have not been mentioned at all today in regard to the 1947 Act, they are entirely outside the scope of the present Bill, and I am sure that those hon. Gentlemen will not expect me to reply to the points which they raised, though the fact that I am not replying to them does not necessarily mean that we can in any way accept the implications of some of their remarks. I feel that it is my job today to deal only with those points which have been raised in so far as this short Bill is concerned.
Firstly, how does the Bill come about at all? It arises, in fact, from an exclusion from the general definition of development in Section 12 of the 1947 Act; and a proviso to subsection (2) excludes from the requirement to obtain planning permission works on buildings that are being renovated or maintained, or in which the interior is being altered while the exterior is not. So far as the general application of the Act is concerned, it was understood to apply to all major repairs and maintenance works, but when the legal gentlemen came along, they decided that maintenance included any work necessary to restore the build-


ing to the condition in which it was before. It is a fact that, in any blitzed area, if there is a wall, say 2 ft. 6 ins. in height, or something like that still standing, the exception under Section 12 (2) (a) of the 1947 Act will apply and the building can be rebuilt without permission. That was by no means the intention of the Act, and, since the question was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Norwich, South, I can say that there have been no serious cases in which redevelopment has been prevented.
I think it was the hon. Member for The High Peak who asked how it was that this defect was found out. It is the result of a case at Hull in which a certain lawyer, who had been briefed by the owner of certain property, stumbled across the point about maintenance including complete restoration of the building so long as some part of it was still standing. The point was looked into, in conjunction with the Law Officers, and it was shown to be the fact: so that, if some very bright people had got on to it and had wanted to be awkward, they could have caused a great deal of trouble. Frankly, we have not shouted about it, nor have the local authorities, nor the legal gentleman, and no damage has been done up to the moment. I am sure that the House will agree, however, that, where so very serious a defect—from the point of view of redevelopment of the blitzed cities—has been brought to light, we ought to put it right, and we have done that by means of Clause 1 of this Bill.
The second point raised by the hon. Member for The High Peak and by the hon. Member for Henley is a very small one. Great play was made of the fact —I do not complain in any shape or form; it is part of the system of debate in this House—that the Amendment in the House of Lords was accepted and that Section 23 was not discussed in this House. The fact is that in all good faith a noble Lord moved the Amendment and that in all good faith it was accepted. The intention of the Amendment was good; it was that a person who had committed a breach of the law, either knowingly or unknowingly, should not for all times be put in peril of being pulled up for it. It placed a limitation on the period of time in which a local

planning authority could call for redress from a person who had evaded planning permission. What happened was that the four-year limitation took effect from the time that planning permission was acted on.
It is quite common, particularly in blitzed areas, for a planning authority to say that for, perhaps, 10, 15 or 20 years they will not be able to develop such areas as they would like to do, and that as the redevelopment will not come about for some considerable length of time they are prepared to give planning permission for temporary shop and office premises or for the temporary re-adaptation of certain buildings. But under the Amendment accepted in the other place, once four years had gone by, anyone could ignore a condition imposed under that planning permission.
I will now deal with the matter of compensation which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill, by the hon. Member for The High Peak and by the hon. Member for Henley. If I may say so, the hon. Member for The High Peak gave the correct answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill in regard to the matter of compensation. Under the Bill as it now stands—and it perpetuates what was in the 1947 Act—where a person is deprived of the opportunity of the reasonable use of his land and buildings through being refused permission to develop, he will, in fact, have the cost of work payment taken into account in the purchase price which he receives from the local authority. That does not mean to say that we can make the cost of work payments mobile, but it does mean that, so far as a person who is, refused planning permission is concerned, the cost of restoring the building is taken into account by the local authority in assessing compensation if, in fact, the owner should require the local authority, as he can under Section 19, to acquire the property as being no longer of any great value to himself.

Mr. Hay: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the amount of compensation would also take into account the much higher cost of the purchase of another site elsewhere?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. Could one really do that in such cases? I do not think one could say that in such a case


the cost of acquiring some other site must, in fact, be taken into account when assessing compensation, because that would lead to a great many difficulties.

Mr. Irvine: I do not want to cause any difficulty about this, but I take it that in his answer to me my hon. Friend is referring to the provisions of Section 53 of the 1947 Act. The point I want to make quite clear is that where there is a value payment to be made—not a cost of work payment—it seems to me there may be a lacuna in the compensation law resulting from this amending Bill.

Mr. Lindgren: I will be perfectly frank; even my legal friends in putting a question as clearly as they can, confuse me. This is a very important but a very confusing point, and if my hon. Friend agrees I will discuss it with him later, because it is so involved.
I think I have answered all the points raised in regard to matters which come within the scope of the Bill, and I thank the House for the—

Mr. Molson: I did ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would give an indication as to how the procedure had worked—whether, in fact, it had worked flexibly and smoothly.

Mr. Lindgren: The general procedure has worked exceptionally well, and there has been very little difficulty at all. In some areas, indeed, there has been greater difficulty over the plans for re-development than over the machinery for redevelopment. In cases of difficulty the dispute usually arose between the existing owners of land and the local authority who wanted a totally different layout for the area. It was an attempt to get the original layout restored which brought the present defect to light.

Mr. Molson: I also asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was possible to distinguish between larger and lesser repair works and whether the experiment had been tried in the case of the directions to say that they should only apply to work involving expenditure of more than a certain amount.

Mr. Lindgren: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me because I had intended to deal with that

point. Although it goes a little wider, the intention of and the urgent necessity for Clause 1 of this Bill is in areas where complete re-development is needed because of the blitz; but the need also arises on the fringes of such areas and even in the case of relatively minor works within such areas. With regard to blitz repairs, all the minor works, generally speaking, have, in fact, been already carried out. After all, it is now five or six years since work of that sort was started in such cities as London, Bristol, Plymouth and others. Therefore, whilst it is true that this Bill deals with both major and minor works, all the minor works have been carried out, and so the hon. Member's point about the need for a distinction between major and minor works does not in practice arise.
In such cases as the hon. Member for Henley quite rightly envisaged—it was a common occurrence for the top floor of a building to be destroyed through incendiary action—it is true to say that in most areas such repairs would have been completed by now. But should such work not have been completed, even in an area in which no immediate redevelopment is to take place, then, of course, the opportunity for restoration is still there, and so the person goes ahead on restoration with war damage payments and the rest.

Mr. Hay: My point was not only that but also that planning permission was required. As I see it, in view of the fact that they had in mind the complete development of that area, a local authority might prevent the restoration of that particular small part of a much bigger building.

Mr. Lindgren: If in fact they have taken power within the area for redevelopment then planning permission must be obtained. Normal sensible arrangements are made by local authorities all over the country: if an area is scheduled for immediate re-development it would be a waste of labour and material if, within 12 months, the whole building was to come down, and the local authority would not sanction it. However, if the site is not required for immediate development they might give planning permission for a number of years for restoration. I thank the House for the way they have received this Bill on Second Reading. As


suggested by hon. Members there are many points which are Committee points and we shall be happy to consider them.

Mr. Hutchinson: rose—

Mr. H. Strauss: There was one other point, and it may be the same point about which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson), is rising to put a question. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is the last chance of raising this point to which I ventured to refer in my winding-up speech. Can he say whether the Government will favourably consider extending the short Title in such a manner that some other Amendments, some of which are supported in all quarters of the House, like that suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford. North, might be considered on the Committee stage?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, I really could not. Quite frankly, and I am speaking entirely personally, I think the point raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) is even more important. The difficulty is where we could stop, and I cannot give that undertaking.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Royle.]

PENICILLIN (MERCHANT SHIPS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

5.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very minor Measure to enable penicillin to be administered in the treatment of merchant seamen on ships where there is no ship's doctor. Under the Penicillin Act, 1947, it was provided that penicillin and other similar substances which were to be defined by regulation, should not be sold, supplied or administered except by a doctor, dentist or veterinary surgeon or by someone acting under their direction. It was very proper that such a Measure should be

passed to ensure that there was no indiscriminate use of penicillin—which might indeed have serious results. In any Measure we take to ensure that in cases of this kind a merchant seaman shall receive proper treatment for illnesses or injuries that occur on board ship we must be careful to see that there are proper precautions, as well.
It will be seen that, while the first Clause of this small Measure enables penicillin treatment to be given, it is made clear in subsection (2) that this treatment should be given under the instructions included in the medical guide kept on board merchant ships under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Revisions of that guide are now being made to incorporate these necessary instructions on how penicillin shall be used at sea where there is not a doctor on board. The revised edition of the guide will be available in a very short time after the passing of this Measure.
There is one other point I should mention. Not only does this guide kept on board under the Act of 1894 give necessary instructions on how treatment should be carried out, but also, under Section 240 of the same Act, a record must be kept of any illnesses and of the treatment used, and that record is open to the shore medical authorities for examination. I said that the 1947 Penicillin Act did provide for these necessary precautions against the indiscriminate use of penicillin and any other similar substances that might be scheduled under regulations. The only other substance so far mentioned under regulation is streptomycin. It is not proposed that streptomycin should be made available in this way. Under medical advice we are assured that this is not necessary or desirable at the present time. Should it be found to be necessary we should, of course, include the necessary instructions in the guide, and this Bill would permit of such instructions being given.
This Measure has the approval of all responsible bodies concerned, and I think we can be all glad that in future penicillin will be available for seamen suffering from diseases arising from cut hands or anything of that kind where it is now regarded as essential in treatment to prevent a very much more serious condition arising. It will now be possible to


treat them with modern medicines, whilst at the same time reserving the necessary safeguards in the use of those medicines.

5.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure there will be no objection in any part of the House to this Bill which, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, came from another place where it was regarded as entirely non-controversial. It is a remarkable feature of medical development that penicillin which, within a comparatively small number of years ago was regarded as a most recondite remedy to be used with the greatest care and the supplies of which were very short indeed, should now be so universally available as to be administered under advice where no medical man is present.
It throws a considerable responsibility of course, on the master or mate of the vessel to whom falls the duty of administering it, and also even more on those who draw up the medical guide. There is a classic story of a master who recorded in his book that he had run out of Remedy 13 but that by a judicious combination of Remedy 8 and Remedy 5 he had succeeded in bridging the gap, to use a popular expression nowadays. The guide will need to be drawn up with considerable care. The Parliamentary Secretary said it would be available very soon. Will it be within the next fortnight or three weeks?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I understand that if there should be any last minute difficulties about issuing the guide an explanatory leaflet will be issued in its place in the interim, and that would take a matter of two or three weeks.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure that will be very much to the advantage of everyone concerned. The necessity for the limitation of the use of this remedy arises out of the unfortunate habit of micro-organisms of learning by experience. We used to think that this quality was confined to the higher organisms, but it is much more widely spread than we had previously conceived. It is wonderful what those little creatures can learn about the ways in which we are attempting to circumvent them; as are the counter-measures they are taking. I be-

lieve it was said of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on one occasion that, being assailed by infection during the war, the official remedy was not proving so efficacious as had been hoped, and that the drama of this caused the right hon. Gentleman's eyes to light up immediately. He said, "Ah, it is their finest hour."
Unfortunately, some of these modern remedies actually produce a reduction of the micro-organisms and may, if injudiciously used, make it more difficult instead of less difficult to cure some of these conditions. It is desirable, therefore, that these remedies should be used with great discretion and it is for that reason that Parliament originally imposed the limitation. It is, however, found necessary to make this exception and I am sure that, with appropriate instructions and an appropriate record kept—which is perhaps more important in these cases than in others—the remedy will be used to the benefit of all concerned. My hon. Friends and myself will certainly not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I agree entirely with everything said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) except that I cannot follow him into the more fascinating part of his speech about the battle with the Divine. I do not think it would be appropriate if we allowed the Second Reading of this Bill to pass without paying a tribute to the very remarkable work which has been done in' years past by ships' masters with the aid of just the ship's medicine chest. They have shown themselves capable of treating most abstruse illnesses with great effect and I have been told that one of their best weapons has been the bottle of purely medicinal port which always goes into the medicine chest. With the added power to use penicillin I am sure there will be a great step forward which will be welcomed by seafarers on all sorts of ships which do not carry a medical officer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hannan.]

WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I wish at once to apologise to the House for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, who assumed his Parliamentary duties in this House today, is for a second or two not here to reply to the debate. The fault is mine. I understood that there was to be at least a speech by the Parliamentary Secretary on the Penicillin Bill and at least a reply from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, and I must say that on this occasion I underestimated the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's loquacity and allowed a few minutes more than his speech actually took him. The message which I sent to my right hon. Friend was, I am afraid, sent only a minute or two ago, and I am sure that he is on his way here with all convenient speed.
In general, may I say that I have sought this opportunity of raising the general issue of pensions for disabled persons not because there is a new Minister in office and not because I had any dissatisfaction with the old Minister, but partly because I have constantly failed in the ballot to raise this matter for some months and partly because I desire, not in any spirit of criticism or hostility, to raise certain matters which in my view still give cause for anxiety and concern.
On a previous occasion, I think in February, 1947, I had an Adjournment on this subject and on that occasion I took some time dealing with a matter which I am sure will be regarded as important on both sides of the House—the question of the chronic disease. I do not like to use the words "incurable disease," because I hope we have reached the stage in which no disease is regarded as incurable. I was dealing with the case where a disease had become so chronic that such persons had not much hope of a cure.
In my division I have been confronted time after time with cases of disseminated sclerosis, with the case of Parkinson's disease which, I understand, is some kind of encephalitis lethargica. I have dealt with the case of a man who joined the Forces officially fit, who came out

crippled by the disease, who was growing progressively worse but in respect of whose case he was utterly helpless to establish as an affirmative that his incapacity was due to service in the Forces because, in fact, no one knows what causes the disease at all. There is no known medical origin. Committees have sat on the subject both in America and in this country, investigations have been made, theories have been propounded, and it is at least relevant to say that in some cases diet has had a good deal of attention given to it in trying to discover the origin of the disease; but the position still is that nobody knows what causes these afflictions and it is therefore utterly impossible for any man to go to the Medical Appeals Tribunal and establish affirmatively that his disease was caused by war service. Nobody knows. I suggest that in those cases the burden clearly should be shifted. The effect of some decisions given by Mr. Justice Denning certainly seems to shift it, but there has been no attempt by the Medical Appeals Tribunal to consider the matter purely on medical grounds.
My right hon. Friend the Minister is now here. I have already apologised for my late notification to him and, now that he is here, I am sure hon. Members on all sides will join with me in welcoming him to his office. The fact that he is being challenged about the administration of his Department, certainly on this occasion in no unfriendly spirit, is an indication that there is no peace for the righteous, or no relaxation for the righteous, and there will be no relaxation permitted by the House.
I hope the House will permit me to repeat myself in saying that I raise this subject in no spirit of complaint against my right hon. Friend's predecessor who, I think, brought to the Ministry great qualities of tact, courtesy and consideration and who certainly introduced many reforms of which all sides of the House approve. In particular, the welfare officers' service is working admirably and I have seen time after time in my correspondence how much pensioners appreciate the courtesy, attention and consideration they receive from welfare officers and how much they appreciate the very full investigation which takes place into their circumstances. Moreover, the Annual


Report on Pensions is an inspiring document. It shows that great progress has been made.
It is right, if we have the time—and we do not always have the time on an Adjournment—to try to give a balanced picture of what has been achieved and it is remarkable that, five or six years after the war, the overall number of pensioners is still going up and is not going down as a result of cures or of people being struck off the list. The number is actually going up.
I want to raise one or two matters which I think are important. In dealing with disabled pensioners the policy of His Majesty's Government was, on the whole, to regard as peculiarly worthy of concentration the very serious cases; to say that where a man was employable and where, in times of full employment. he was getting employment, there was not necessarily a great case for increasing the percentage disability pension, but that where he was unemployable and where he needed attendance he should have much more substantial additional allowances and should have a reasonable standard of living. That is a policy of which we all approve.
In my view, the figures show that far too small a percentage of pensioners are receiving those allowances. I think I am right in my figures which show that, for the unemployability supplement, something like 6,000 pensioners receive an allowance. So far as the compensating pension for diminution of occupational capacity is concerned—I forget the precise term used—the figure is something like 8,000 and for the constant attendance allowance it is rather less than 3,000—all out of a grand total of 600,000 pensioners. Here again I must pay tribute to the fact that, where I have dealt with these cases in my correspondence, a number of the allowances have been granted where the facts warranted that decision. At least one came when it had not been requested. Thus, steps are being taken. But I suggest that great satisfaction would be given if there were perhaps a slightly less rigid interpretation of the rules of unemployability.
That brings me to my second point, and here I hope to have my right hon. Friend's sympathy because, while he was

Minister of Labour, he had great experience of dealing with disabled persons. He did great work. I come to a matter which arises in Oldham where we certainly are prepared to pay tribute to the work he has done. He will remember that I have had some discussions about it. It is the question of work in the home, which, I think, is important, for disabled persons generally. His predecessor did introduce a home work scheme of his own, and it may very well be that my right hon. Friend, when considering the matter, will think it worth while combining those two, schemes into a general scheme of provision of work within the home.
However, the fact remains that, although conditions today are better than they have been, although more disabled persons are in employment than ever before, although in Oldham the hard core of unemployed disabled persons, which was 700 disabled persons unemployed in 1945. has been reduced now to about 200—I have not the latest figures readily at my hand, but I think that those are roughly accurate—one is still distressed about the number of persons who are quite employable but who, because of their medical record, fail to obtain employment.
This is still quite a serious problem, and here I am sorry to say the nationalised industries have not a very good record in this connection. I am a little shocked sometimes to hear of men, disabled pensioners from the war, who seek or have work on British Railways, who are then submitted to a rigid medical test and told that they have failed the test and can no longer continue in employment. I think that this should cease. I think that the excuse that "Ours is a dangerous occupation" for which people with a slight disability are not fitted is really unreasonable. If the man is prepared to take the risk, the employers should be prepared to take it, so long as, in doing so, they do not endanger anybody else; and that possibility does not arise in all these cases. Work should be found for these people because what they want is work. The cure for their sufferings, or, if not the cure, the amelioration of their sufferings, is work.
Before my right hon. Friend arrived I was making some reference to the question of the sufferers from chronic diseases. I shall not repeat myself. He can read


what I said in HANSARD tomorrow, and he can also read in HANSARD of 10th February, 1947, what I said about the matter before.
I now come to a matter which is of some concern. No one has had more occasion to lavish compliments on the medical profession than I, or has had more reason to be grateful to the medical profession than I; and they do a great work. However, I am sometimes worried about reports from medical appeal tribunals, and I am sometimes worried about the attitude of mind to the chronic sufferers which seems to have developed on the medical tribunals.
One of my constituents went to a medical tribunal. I must make it clear that the doctor concerned was not a pensions doctor but a locum. My constituent went to his doctor to collect his medical history so as to submit it to the tribunal. It was very decent of the doctor to give it to him, because not all doctors would do so. But the point was that my constituent was very much surprised when he read the entry for 3rd July, 1937—it is surprising how these records are made 19 years after a war rather more frequently than 19 months after a war—which said:
He limps, and will continue to limp so long as he gets money for jam from the R.A. Corps, from the National Health, and from the Ministry of Pensions.
The man came to see me a month or two ago. He is still limping. He was examined by a medical friend of mine for the genuineness of his case. I have no doubt about it. It is rather a shocking thing that we find that sort of attitude as expressed in that man's case.
I am distressed about another case which came to my hands a couple of days ago. Although this case is still under consideration I think my right hon. Friend will forgive me for mentioning it, because there is a point in it which distresses me, and I am not talking about the case but about the general principle. In this case my constituent was examined by the medical survey board in July, 1948. His military history itself was not a very impressive one. He had suffered from bilateral otitis media for a long period of his service in the Army. He was sent while suffering to service in the Orkneys which I should have thought was the worst possible thing for a man suffering from otitis media. He was discharged,

and given a fair pension on the basis of his incapacity. He went to the medical survey board who examined him and reported:
His general condition is good.
That was on 10th July, 1948. Five weeks later he died. The post-mortem examination revealed the following: the heart muscles had degenerated; the right side was dilated; atherona at coronary orifices; emphysena of lungs; cloudy swelling of liver and arterio sclerotic nephritis of the kidneys; and the cause of death was myo-cardial degeneration due to arterio sclerotic nephritis. I do not profess to have any medical knowledge, but if a medical survey board examines me today and in five weeks' time I am dead with something wrong—with something seriously wrong with my liver and lungs and arteries and my heart—then I lose faith in medical examinations altogether.
Then we get a wretched dispute going on with the appeals board about whether this was due to or connected with otitis media and whether death could be caused by otitis media. Most text books say that nephritis frequently follows otitis media but some doctors say that the arterio sclerosis indicates an intervening hardening of the arteries.
There we get the sort of case where it is utterly impossible for anyone to come to the profession and prove anything conclusively. I say that in a case like that it is reasonable for the Ministry to say, "Here is a man who was gravely ill in the Forces and who has been gravely ill ever since, and who has died prematurely in a very serious condition, and who has suffered all that time, and this is the sort of case where there should be a pension."
My worries about the medical surveys have been a little amplified by one or two other matters which have come to my attention—some of them quite longstanding matters—and by some of the results that have arisen out of them. There is the case of Mr. Parker of Swansea Street, Oldham. Mr. Parker served in the war of 1914–18, and he said he had been shot in the shoulder, and he went on saying that he had been shot in the shoulder for 30 years. For 30 years everybody told him he had not been shot in the shoulder, and that there was no particular wound noticeable, and that there was nothing to complain about. I


am glad that the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) is here who can give me medical support if I err, but I should say that Mr. Parker had something to complain about. About 30 years after Mr. Parker had been saying to the doctors that he had been shot in the shoulder he came to me and said he had been shot in the shoulder, and I had him X-rayed at the Oldham Infirmary where the bullet was discovered and taken out—after 30 years during which he had been complaining he had been shot in the shoulder and after 30 years during which he had been told he had not. The Ministry gave him a pension, but refused to pay him back money on the ground that he had not made a claim. This is not good enough. It is just not good enough. The man had really claimed every two or three years for 30 years during which he had been suffering.
That is not the only case. That is one case but it is not the only one. I have had two more cases. One is of a man with shrapnel in the nose, and another of a man with a bullet in the head. That man died while the matter was under investigation. I am told—and I do not doubt its accuracy—that the bullet lodged in the skull and did not enter the brain and that there was no injury to the brain. But the man who had the bullet in his head for 25 years suffered chronically from headaches at night and from sleeplessness and from double vision which surely must have been associated with that bullet. It would have at least been reasonable if that man had said, "Blimey, I do not care what the doctors say, I have a bullet wound, and my condition is due to that." It would not have been unreasonable for the widow to have said that she would not have been a widow but for that injury.
I do feel that there ought to be some machinery for reconsidering these cases. What I suggest is this. I ventured to suggest to one of my right hon. Friend's predecessors a year or two ago what I think everybody will agree was a wise thing. The Minister could say, "The law has been altered a bit now and the chance should be given for the re-hearing of the case of anyone who is dissatisfied." Hon. Members on both sides of the House will probably agree with me that they hear of no more distressing cases and have no more distressing letters than

those concerned with the poor men suffering from a sense of grievance over their pensions; and they will probably agree with me that even if the sense of grievance is unjust it causes the sufferer to be worse even to the menacing of his life.
So there is a great deal to be said for some limited system of reconsideration. I think that it could be put on more than one ground. It could be put on the ground that there is no question whatever that the review of the law which has been undertaken under Mr. Justice Denning has really shifted the onus of proof and altered the law on the subject. There are many cases which might have been rightly legally refused a year or two ago which ought now rightly to be granted.
Secondly, I think that it can be put on the ground that, however good the system, one examination is not always enough and one medical appeal tribunal is not always enough. There are many diseases which ebb and flow in their consistency, and there is the possibility that one examination by a medical appeal tribunal on a busy day is not sufficient to give a final determination. I consider that one of the first matters which the Minister should consider is whether he would be prepared to initiate some system of reconsideration of a limited class of cases which was supported by sufficient medical evidence or other evidence to justify the appeal that they were cases to which some consideration should be given.
I have been approached recently, as no doubt have other hon. Members, by the British Limbless ex-Service Men's Association, and I will try to cover some of the points which they have put to me. They advocate an increase in the basic rate of pension. They suggest that the 45s. basic should go up to the basic rate of a warrant officer, Class I. They also complained about the difficulty of finding employment—and the matter of which they complain, which is most important, is that where a man is genuinely seeking work and is in receipt of a disability pension, and who, because of that disability, fails to find it, and the Minister fails to find it for him, he should be entitled to an unemployability supplement until work can be found for him. I urge consideration of that upon the Minister.
The House has been very tolerant with me. I speak with some difficulty. I have the use of only one hand—a temporarily disabled person but a not wholly unemployed person—and I will not therefore raise the wider issues to which I would be happy to devote at least four hours. There is the claim of the Far East prisoners of war, although that may not fall within the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend. Consideration might be given to arrangements which I understand have been made for some sort of reparations payments, such as is given to members of the American forces who were prisoners of war in the Far East. If it is true that they get these payments, then perhaps General MacArthur, when he is freed from some of his other preoccupations, might remember that there were British forces there who are fully entitled to some of these benefits.
I should also like to make reference to parents' pensions—pensions to parents who have lost their sons or daughters in the war. During the 1914–18 war, the principle was that a pension in that case was given as a right. Since this war, we have adapted the principle by saying that we will give considerably more by way of pension but only to people who establish that they had some dependance or prospective dependance on their sons, which would justify a claim on the basis of financial loss. These people, who come to see us from time to time and who are suffering very tragically, are not seeking money, but they feel that as they have lost their sons or daughters in the cause of war operations, there ought to be some acknowledgment of that service. I feel strongly that some of these cases are never adequately considered and never properly met.
I have tried to cover a fairly wide ground in giving the Minister a cordial welcome to his new office, and I hope to persuade him against the policy of relaxing, to which earlier reference was made. We will, at any rate, try to save him from that. We appreciate that he is taking over a Ministry which has given wide satisfaction to the House as a whole. It is a Ministry which, as the reports have shown, reveals a real humanity and that efforts have really been made to help those most in need. He has come from a Ministry which has done great work in serving the disabled. He leaves it with

six years of success, and he leaves it at the very moment where he is able to report the highest figure of employment ever maintained in this country. That is a very great record. That is why we welcome him to his new post, but he can rest assured that, whatever his effort, we shall never regard it as completely satisfactory, and that we shall take opportunities similar to this, from time to time, to urge upon him more and more this good and necessary work, and a work which is fully due to people for the services which they have given to us.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: The House is very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), for raising this matter. I think that he obviously has a very deep personal interest in it, because, if I recall his previous accidents, he is entirely in that class known as "accident prone." I understand that his recent disability was acquired in the Swiss mountains. I hope that he was not in the original avalanche which has resulted in such a major disaster.
My hon. Friend has raised a matter which, I am sure, many hon. Members in all parts of the House have a deep interest, and who, if they had known that he was going to raise it, would have looked through their list of cases, particularly those few—and I stress the word "few"—in which they failed to get satisfaction from the Minister. I, too, would like to pay tribute to the Minister who has now become the Minister of Health for his admirable administration, and I am sure that those of us—and I see hon. Members on both sides of the House who serve on the Central Advisory Committee for Pensions—would all pay tribute to his competence in the role which he has fulfilled, and congratulate him on the promotion which he has now received.
It is, however, true that there is still a number of aspects of the work of the Ministry of Pensions, despite the tremendous improvement which has been made in humanising the outlook of their officials and of the service, which I, for one, do not find completely satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, has mentioned one matter which I particularly have in mind, and I would also like to quote one or two examples. All of us have men in our


constituencies who are disabled, but are not technically unemployable who can-pot get an unemployability supplement, and I would ask for a fairer and more generous application of the rule.
I do not myself believe that the actual figures quoted by my hon. Friend are much of an indication of the measure of need. I do not think that there are many who are left out. I know of one or two cases—particularly one case which I have sent to the Ministry—of a man who is living solely on his pension and has no other means. It was always the proud boast of the previous Minister of Pensions that no such person existed in this country. I admit that these cases are recent. I have sent them to him, and I know that they will be looked into and, I hope, rectified. Nevertheless, I believe that the few cases which are around should have been picked up before they were brought to the notice of the local Member of Parliament.
I would like to urge, a more sympathetic and human approach to the employment of disabled men not only by nationalised industries and by private employers but also by Government Departments. The situation is very patchy. Certain employers in private industry go out of their way to create opportunities for employing disabled people, but I again stress the fact that there are many disabled people who are capable of something more than being messengers or lift attendants. There should be more opportunity for employment throughout the whole scale for these people in the field of local government. Indeed, in some cases men are being held back owing to their medical record.
A case came to my notice only in the last two or three weeks. I have written to the Ministry of Labour and to the present Minister of Pensions about it, and I ask my right hon. Friend to approach his right hon. Friend to see what can be done about it. It is the case of a disabled messenger, a man who was badly gassed in the First World War. He was employed at an employment exchange as a messenger. He was not established, but he had worked for the Ministry for 15 years. Suddenly, he was discharged at the age of 59, although, as far as I can tell, he had undertaken his duties with

competence and reliability. He received a curt letter giving a week's notice.
I realise that it is necessary for the Ministry to economise as much as possible, but I believe it would have been possible to save this particular man's job. If the Ministry had consulted other Ministries, I believe that a messenger who was not disabled and could more properly be released could have been found, a man who would have stood a better chance of finding employment. This man has been sent to jobs by the local employment exchange, but as they have involved lifting work he has been unable to obtain employment. The result is that he is well on the way to becoming one of the unemployable.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the Ministry of Labour, can turn his attention to this type of problem. I have nothing but the highest praise for the disablement officers in the Ministry and elsewhere for the work they do. The fact is that this is a matter on which we can never let up; there is always something more that can be done. There are always people for whom it is not easy to find a satisfactory solution and for whom we should continue to struggle. I can think of many other points I should like to raise, but I will conclude by referring briefly to parents' pensions. This is a subject which has been argued on many occasions, and I have been associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, in putting forward this case.
I realise that it is difficult at this time to submit an argument for increasing expenditure of any kind. Let us admit that we are faced with a very severe problem in paying for re-armament. I am sure, however, that certain concessions can be made in the field of pensions. One thing that could be done for parents is to raise the scale of need above which no pension is payable, and it is to that type of reform that I ask the Minister to direct his attention. I can assure him that there is very deep feeling among parents, not only from the point of view of need, but from the point of view of principle. They feel that recognition has not been given to them for their plight.
Finally, I wish to make two small suggestions: when my right hon. Friend puts in his bill for the year to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he should remember the


pensions for widows and also the rate of hardship allowance to which my right hon. Friend has referred. I believe that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to get certain concessions. We all know that the Ministry of Pensions is bound to be limited by the overall financial situation, but I ask my right hon. Friend to press for these concessions. I would also tell my right hon. Friend that it has been the opinion of all Members associated with the Ministry of Pensions since the war that they expect and have always received a very high standard of sympathy and efficiency both from the Minister and his Department, and that we are fortunate in having my right hon. Friend to take over such an important post and continue the work of his predecessor.

6.6 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I was not in my place when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), opened this debate, but I have no doubt that he paid tribute to the work of the recent Minister of Pensions. As a new Member, I wish to say that of all the communications sought and received from Government Departments none have been more painstaking and more carefully reasoned and presented than those I have had from the Ministry of Pensions. I am glad that the hon. Member pin-pointed certain subjects, subjects which appear with painful regularity in our post-bags. I am glad, for example, that he made the point that in the case of limbless ex-Service men the fact of temporary unemployability of itself should be evidence of the sort that is required for the special allowance.
I am glad that the hon. Member made some reference to parents' pensions. It is not enough to prove the fact of a past contribution, but it is necessary to prove present dependency. I am bound to say, in fairness to the Minister, that I understand that when past contribution has been proved he frankly admits theoretical liability to pension. It would appear to be unusual frankness on behalf of those responsible for pensions.
A point the hon. Member stressed, which is a point of unusual importance, is the attitude to be taken where, on all clinical and scientific grounds, it is impossible to prove that service caused disablement. This onus is largely changing,

and it would not be a departure from principle in that shift of onus to take a somewhat more generous attitude. If no one knows the cause, then no one can exclude the factor of service. I do not wish my remarks to be taken as an expression of strong criticism of the Ministry. I have observed, in the many cases with which I have had dealings with the Ministry, that they have done their utmost to accept the doubt. It needs to be said, however, that if there is no evidence of the cause, then there is nothing to exclude the sequence of events which, in the aggregate, is the period of service.
There has been an enormous improvement and extension in the facilities for mechanical locomotion. A number of the motor-propelled invalid tricycles am out of date, and I believe that steps are being taken for the introduction of new models. I hope that spare parts will be easily available for the new models. I have inspected some of the tricycles that have come from the Ministry to constituents of mine, and inaccessibility seems to be a characteristic of these antiquated vehicles, as, indeed, it was in antiquated vehicles of other kinds.
I would ask that consideration be given to one important change—that the Ministry should consider supplying, at what would be a relatively small additional cost, an invalid tricycle that can accommodate two people. At the moment the invalid using the tricycle—and immensely grateful no doubt he is for that tricycle—must proceed in solitude. It would not be stretching generosity too far to make available a double vehicle instead of the single vehicle. It has practical advantages; if anything goes wrong there is someone who can give a hand. I urge this change upon the human ground that people prefer to go out in pairs, husband accompanying wife, wife accompanying husband, and the like.
One small detail, which may seem to be unimportant but, I am told, is relatively important. I hope that in the newer vehicles there is a means of reversing them. Those who use these invalid tricycles find that one of the most difficult practical problems which occur from time to time is the lack of reversing apparatus, which means that they have to call to a helpful passer-by to aid them, in the process of turning their vehicle round.
This debate, which I am glad has occurred, has afforded us an opportunity, not of launching a general assault on the Department, which no one would wish to make, but of focussing the attention of the House and the Minister upon what are, in effect, some of the lesser aspects of pension administration, but which, to individual cases, can be so very important.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: I want to join with the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) in agreeing that this debate is not an assault on the Ministry of Pensions, because it is universally agreed that they have done a first-class job in preceding years. I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) in saying that we have now a very worthy successor to previous Ministers. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, with the knowledge and outlook which he has shown for many years, will make a great success of this position and will discharge his duties with a great sense of dignity and understanding.
The only reason I wish to intervene is because my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, raised what I thought was an extremely important point when he referred to the fact that pension appeals tribunals are often confronted with a fait accompli before the cases have been heard, because of certain medical opinion expressed with regard to these particular diseases. Like other hon. Members in the House, I take a personal interest in pension cases in my constituency, and in collaboration with the British Legion in the last three years, I have defended 40 of these cases at the appeals tribunals. My percentage of failures and success has been about fifty-fifty. Most of the failures have been in cases where the claimant is suffering from diabetes mellitus, disseminated sclerosis or poliomyelitis.
There is one particular case to which I should like to draw attention. A man in my constituency—I will not mention his name—was six years in the Army, two of which were in a prisoner-of-war camp in Germany, where the conditions were very arduous. When he was discharged he was suffering from dysentery and sciatica. He was discharged, and given treatment

for the sciatica. Very shortly afterwards he was found to be suffering from diabetes mellitus, and as a consequence he now has to inject himself with insulin twice a day and take certain precautions. This man applied for a pension and he argued —I put the case on his behalf—that his war service in general, and his prisonerof-war service in particular, were contributory factors. Nevertheless, the tribunal turned that case down not with out a great deal of sympathy for the man, but because the weight of medical opinion with regard to the complaint was against him. Medical opinion said that diabetes mellitus is, in the main, hereditary and that conditions of hardship are not necessarily contributory. The point is that a man who has led an easy life can contract this complaint, and it does not follow that hardship is any contributory cause.
I accept the argument that if a man is fit for service he is fit for pension. This man contracted diabetes mellitus, and all the medical opinion against him cannot convince him that this disease was not due to war service and to the conditions attaching to it. He is a member of a family which never suffered from diabetes, and he has gone a long way back to prove that. The tribunal was very kind, considerate, and fair, but were unable to grant the pension, much as they would have liked to do, because of the view of the doctors on the matter. The same applies to the other complaints mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West. In the case of disseminated sclerosis, medical opinion is that in the main it is hereditary, and, therefore, nothing to do with a man's service in the Forces.
Some of our people find it extremely difficult to understand some of these cases. For my own part, I believe that the exprisoner-of-war to whom I have referred contracted the disease as a result of his very arduous time in the Army, but the Ministry were unable to award him a pension. I hope that it is to matters of this kind that my right hon. Friend will apply himself when he gets firmly into the new office in which he is now serving.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, mentioned parents' pensions. It is difficult to explain to parents that because they happen to be earning £7 a week they can get nothing for the


son they loved and lost. They cannot understand the argument, "You are earning £7 a week, but if it should drop to £4 a week, come along and we will see what we can do for you." It should not be a question of need for the initial payment of a pension, but an acknowledgement.
I want to end by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, has done a great public service by raising this matter tonight, to which we are giving attention in the midst of all our international troubles. I hope that the Ministry will continue to give the great service which it has been performing, so that the anomalies which are left may be removed and we can get justice and satisfaction.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Basil Nield: I should like to add a few words in support of the case which has been made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale), and which was impressive. It has received general agreement in all parts of the House. There are two very short points which I desire to make on this subject, but before I come to them I would express the hope that the disability of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, will be short-lived. I should also like to voice a welcome to the right hon. Gentleman the new Minister of Pensions who, I know, will bring to his new office great warmth and sympathy.
The first of my two points concerns the onus of proof in certain cases. The House might best address itself to this point by considering the sort of case which is often brought to our notice as Members of Parliament. It is the case of the man who goes into the Army, where he is medically examined and is passed Al. In the course of his service he becomes ill, and his illness progresses until it becomes a disability. It is then often impossible to convince that unfortunate individual that his service had not something to do with the disability, whatever the doctors say.
I believe that the view as to where the onus of proof lies in such cases has largely changed and that a more generous view is taken in that respect. One hopes that that is the case, and that it will now rather be a matter of showing that the disability did not arise from the service than of the disabled person having to

establish that it did. I feel that the matter can be dealt with administratively in a more sympathetic way. I would add that there are psychological factors. One is that if a man is seriously disabled he may, in any case, have to be supported out of some fund of public money, and that it may afford the man more satisfaction that the help should come out of the funds of the Ministry of Pensions.
The other point is rather in the nature of a question about appeal tribunals relating to special cases. If I am right, new principles have been laid down fairly recently, particularly by Mr. Justice Denning, as he then was. Many cases were decided upon old principles, and the House quite rightly decided that they should have an opportunity of coming forward again to have new principles applied to them. I know that such special appeal tribunals were working until recently, and I would like to know whether they have finished their work or are still in being. I promised to be brief, and I shall. Every hon. Member will desire, despite all our difficulties, that we should do whatever is possible for Service pensioners. These matters have given us all very great concern and we hope that some of the hardships will be removed. For example, parents' pensions have given most of us considerable concern. I desire to support the general case which has been made.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: I am very glad that this matter has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale). I want to make what I think are important points on matters which are causing a great deal of worry in connection with pensions cases. The first is the attitude of the Ministry towards cases of coronary thrombosis. I understand that the Ministry do not agree to pensions in such cases, and I should be very pleased to know whether that information is right or wrong.
I want to mention a case which came before the tribunal last Monday morning, in which a widow was trying to establish a claim for a person who was a sergeant in the "Liverpool Kings." The man had done 18 years' service, or 18 years and 3 months, to be precise. He had served two years in Gibraltar and at least one


year and nine months in Burma. Like other men taken on for longer service, he was periodically examined. He died in September, 1949, in Burma. I took the matter up with the Ministry and endeavoured to get their consideration, after the widow had approached me. The information which I secured from my medical friends delayed the appeal tribunal for nearly 12 months. When I raised the question at the opening of the case before the tribunal I was assured by the tribunal that the opinion expressed by the medical adviser of the Ministry decided the case even before the tribunal had looked at it.
I was advised by the tribunal that some of the authorities upon whom I had relied in regard to this case were not necessarily right in asserting that stress, strain and climatic conditions had anything to do with the case. The tribunal stated that those factors had nothing to do with this case, that the cause of death was hereditary and that the man would have died of coronary thrombosis whatever walk of life he had entered. In addition to that, they stated that the number of coronary thrombosis cases weeded out or discharged from the Army had been about 321 in seven years. I had cited the authority of a very eminent medical writer. I forget his name, and I have not my papers with me. Like other hon. Members I was caught out by this debate, although glad of the opportunity which has been given us to speak on this matter. That authority stated that stress and strain were contributory factors which could be the cause of death.
Such an expression of opinion ought to be taken into consideration with the other medical opinions given to the Ministry. The Ministry do not consider that any case of this kind has been made out, but it seems to me that there is such a case. The Ministry's view has not altered over the years but I believe that medical opinion has softened and changed considerably, and as a result of the advice which has been given to me by medical men I am satisfied that the Ministry should have second thoughts about pensions in these cases.
I want to say something about what was put to the tribunal in this case to show that there is something in stress and strain being a contributory factor.

This man's wife is a constituent of mine and he was a Liverpool lad and lived in Kirkdale before he joined the Army at the age of 21. He did over 18 years' service. In his last few months in Burma he had occasion to see a doctor. When this matter was taken up with the Minister attempts were made to verify this but there was no record of it. Nevertheless, on at least one occasion a month before he passed away the man had a heart attack and went sick. The doctor treated him for indigestion. The widow told me—I think I am justified in repeating this because there is a shortage of bottles—that a beer bottle was used to hold his indigestion mixture. A month later the man passed away in his office doing his job. Whatever may have been the opinion of former Ministers and whatever may have been the medical advice given to them, the Ministry should now have second thoughts on this question.
I am sorry that I did not speak before the hon. Member for Luton because his opinion about this would probably have been of value. From the way he spoke I gathered that he shares the point of view to which I have been trying to give expression, that in cases where individuals have been serving in the Forces and, with stress and strain, the complaint has developed and brought about premature death, a pension should be payable. I am glad to have had the opportunity of ventilating this matter for it is one which affects very many men in the Services and I hope that as a result more attention will be given to it than in the past.

6.35 p.m.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: It must be unique in Parliamentary history that at a time of acute international tension we can find time to discuss other very vital social problems. Like many other hon. Members, in the short time in which I have been a Member of the House I have had a great deal of correspondence on this matter. I should like to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Health for the painstaking care and consideration which he has always given to the cases which I have submitted, though I have not achieved 100 per cent. success. I have been somewhat astonished at the facility with which some


cases get through and the extreme difficulty which one experiences in other cases in which one might have thought that the supporting evidence was overwhelming.
I have one or two cases to cite. One relates to a man who was wounded in the 1914–18 war. To this day he carries a piece of shrapnel in his right buttock. I do not know much about medical matters, but I should imagine that the positioning of a piece of metal in a man's body would at some time or other, between 1918 and 1950, cause some disability. That man has a disability but the Ministry say that he has not the disability which he claims to have but a disability in another part of his body altogether, of which the man himself is quite unaware. I submit that this is a case where one ought to take into account the commonsense point of view that, after all, a piece of shrapnel is a foreign body and is very likely to cause some difficulty in a man's physical makeup.
Another man was gassed and also had trench fever in the First World War. He still bears the evidence of the trench fever but his medical papers in the Ministry have no record that he suffered from it at any time, notwithstanding the fact that he was invalided out of that war. That man is incapable of any work whatsoever today. He suffers from a considerable number of complaints in consequence of that trouble. His case has been put forward by successive Members of Parliament for Ilford without any success whatever.
There are also the cases of two other men, both of whom were invalided out of the Services. Today, neither of these men is capable of any work whatsoever. So ill and incapable are they that they have to be carried about in their own homes. Every action which they do has to be guided and supported by their wives or other persons in their houses. In such circumstances it is not possible for a wife to go out to supplement any income which may be coming into the family. The result is that in some of these cases extreme hardship is being occasioned. In the last two cases I have mentioned there is a conflict of medical opinion, and in both there is the wretched disease of disseminated sclerosis notwithstanding the fact that both men were invalided out of the Service for some reason or another, and both were accepted into the Service on a medical category of A.1.
If I have any criticism to make of the Ministry of Pensions, it is their slowness in dealing with some of these cases, although in many there is considerable speed. However, one I have mentioned has been continuing in correspondence since I have been a Member of this House, which is nearly a year. All the time conditions in that family are getting worse and worse. Surely it should not be impossible for the officers of the Ministry to deal with these acute cases with greater despatch than they are doing at present.
Finally, I make an appeal to the Minister. In September last year the British Limbless ex-Service Men's Association made an appeal to the Prime Minister and to other Ministers in connection with the pensions paid for amputations. The rates are still the same as those of 1919, but conditions have changed and the cost of living is out of all proportion to what it was when the pension for this type of case was fixed in that year. Surely there is the strongest case, on moral and ethical grounds, for the man who has given his very limbs in the service of his country to be given more consideration in 1951 when prices are so different from those in 1919.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Frank Anderson: Like other hon. Members I want to pay my tribute to the generous consideration that the present Minister of Health has always given to cases which I have submitted to his Ministry. While I feel sure that the new Minister will give the same sympathetic consideration to cases that will occur during his period of office, I recognise that however much the Minister may be in sympathy with a case that is put up, he has to be governed by the instrument that governs him. In other words, the Warrant has to do to the job and not simply the Minister.
I shall touch on an aspect which so far has not been considered this evening. I have been responsible for about 220 cases going before the pensions appeal tribunals and I am glad to say that I have won 83 per cent. of those cases. I have made it a practice not only to take notice of what appears upon the precis sheets that go before the tribunals, but also of the complete history from the beginning of a man's service to the very end. I have found that in the majority of cases the additional information secured and put before the tribunal has been the deciding factor in his favour.
I suggest that instead of considering just the fact that a man has been in hospital and what he has been treated for, an effort should be made to get from the man concerned the whole of his experience during his service, because it may be found that there is a contributory cause which does not appear on the précis sheets. I recommend the Minister to consider that aspect of the question. I have also found that there is a lot of information on the précis sheets which is foreign to the man concerned.
Again, when we have tried to get the opinion of a specialist, he has not been prepared to go before a tribunal and this has made it difficult for the man to have an expert opinion. We know that the Medical Services Division has every facility for getting medical evidence, but the applicant should be given access to the same expert opinion as the Ministry of Pensions. This would at least prevent the man concerned from feeling that he was not getting a fair crack of the whip. Disseminated sclerosis has been mentioned in this debate. I did not come prepared or I would have brought much more information with me. However, I have secured, in one case, an expert opinion as against the opinion of the Medical Services Division, but a promise had to be made that I would not ask this expert to go before a tribunal in the event of the case, going there.
This specialist, speaking of disseminated sclerosis said:
In spite of the statement appearing in the opinion given by the Medical Services Division of the Ministry of Pensions … that 'it is considered that it is not due to a virus or other form of infection,' I would point out that no inconsiderable weight of neurological opinion favours the view of infection by a virus or similar infecting agent. If this is so, and it is impossible to prove the contrary, such a virus might well be contracted on service, especially following the debilitating effects of several attacks of malaria during 1942 to 1944, which "(this applicant)" appears to have suffered before the disseminated sclerosis manifested itself by symptoms. Such a period of quiescence is well known with regard to viruses and other forms of microorganism, for instance the virus of encephalitis and protozon (spirochaete) of syphilis.
So this expert comes to an entirely contrary view to that of the Medical Services Division.
A man who is not using the services of the British Legion will find himself at a slight disadvantage. When he appeals

to his own medical practitioner, in the majority of cases the medical practitioner will say that he has no right to express an opinion; but he is the medical man concerned, and in getting these cases before a tribunal there is the utmost difficulty in securing an opinion from a specialist. I think that the Ministry might make it a little easier for that opinion to be obtained, so that it may be found how far the Medical Services Division are correct in their opinions.
I want to deal also with Hodgkin's disease, of which I have had experience of five cases. In three cases this disease occurred after the men had been vaccinated, but in the remaining two cases that could not be proved. I submitted a long account of these cases to the Ministry some considerable time ago, but when once the Medical Services Division have come to a conclusion there is the utmost difficulty in getting them to reverse their decision. I hope that in cases such as Hodgkin's disease, where it can be proved, for example, that in three out of five cases vaccination had taken place, at least some further consideration will be given.
We have the greatest difficulty also with nerve and neurasthenia cases, and I hope that in this direction also facilities may be given for applicants to obtain opinions from specialists to see how far the opinion of the Medical Services Division can be controverted in the light of the knowledge which a medical adviser would have of a man and his family. I hope that consideration will be given to allowing the applicant the same access to a specialist as have the Medical Services Division.
One other aspect on which I should like to speak is that of the disabled person who happens to be in a country area. In some cases he seems to be forgotten. He draws his pension, signs on, often by post, and seems to have no opportunity to be employed. I hope that the Ministry of Pensions will not simply leave it to the Ministry of Labour to do what they can in these cases, but that something more will be done for these men in the countryside, where there may be only two or three disabled persons who are unemployed and merely drawing their unemployment pay plus their pension. More detailed consideration ought to be given to the kind of work which can be found


for these people rather than that they should be allowed to walk the country roads, as they are doing at present.
I trust that the medical men on the appeal tribunals are up-to-date in their medical knowledge. I sometimes fear that some of them have retired from the medical service a long time ago. If they have to become judges as to how far a case is proved or otherwise, I hope that steps will be taken to ensure—I know that this does not rest wholly with the Ministry of Pensions—that these medical men are competent and have the necessary knowledge to pronounce judgment upon the cases with which they have to deal.

6.54 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I should like, first, to join with other hon. Members, not only in wishing all success in his new office to the Minister, but also in paying a tribute to the work of his predecessor who s now the Minister of Health. I should like at the same time, as memories are sometimes short, equally to pay a very strong tribute to the Minister's earlier predecessor, Mr. George Buchanan, for I believe, from experience and after a long time on the Central Advisory Committee, that Mr. Buchanan did, perhaps, more than anybody else to humanise and to relax the officialdom of the Ministry and to make it the very flexible organ which it now is for doing good.
None the less, it is possible to improve the system of the Ministry and pensions generally. The system is still too complicated. There have been too many additions to amendments of and subtractions from the various regulations and scales of pensions. The rates are not simple by any means. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), with the British Legion behind him, and I and various hon. Members have in the past urged that there should be an inquiry by a committee into the whole system of disability pensions.
That request was in no way intended as a vote of censure upon the Ministry; it was exactly what we said it was. We thought that the system could be improved, and we asked that there should be an inquiry. We still believe that the system might be improved and that there

might well be an inquiry, and we cannot see that in expressing that view and in asking for an inquiry we are in any way casting missiles at the Ministry of Pensions, which, we acknowledge, has done very much good work and has become, as I have said, very much more human and far less official-bound than it was a few years ago.
We believe that some increases in pensions are necessary, although I know how inappropriate it is at the present time to ask for increases in anything. We do not ask for enormous increases, but some increases are necessary, and we believe that a rise in the basic rate for total disablement is justified. We ask again that this may be very carefully gone into, not by a departmental committee, but by a committee of inquiry. There are some pensioners who are now living on a very bare scale. Especially is this true of oldish men, with, perhaps elderly wives. These households have at their disposal only one or two ration books and it is very hard for them to manage.
The cost of living has risen very much, and in many cases, not only in Government service, but in industry generally, wages and salaries have risen to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living. That cannot be said of pensions. Life is a very different affair for the pensioner, who has to live without any increase on account of the higher cost of living. Life is very hard for many pensioners, and theirs is a case which might well be looked into and some, not very large, but more or less adequate, increase might very well be granted.
Sometimes it is not recognised that disabilities grow worse with the passage of time and that pain is apt to increase. Particularly is that the case with injuries to the eyes. As a man grows older his injury is apt to have more effect in affecting his sight. That is also the case with other injuries. An hon. Member quoted a case of a man who, having been wounded in 1916, was still found to have a piece of shell in his body. An acquaintance of mine recently wrote to me from a hospital saying:
It is an extraordinary thing, I lost my leg from wounds in 1916, I was in some pain the other day and it has just been discovered that I have a piece of shell in me above the place from which my leg was amputated.


I quote that case to show that there are cases discovered only after many years. I urge that the cases of people wounded years ago, or having had some serious disease years ago and now finding the effects growing greater, should be considered and in some cases some allowance might be made in the pensions. I know it is done in some cases, but I think it might be done more liberally.
Cases of pensioners living in the United States and Canada particularly, and in some other Dominions do need careful looking into. We all know how our currency has depreciated in terms of the dollar. We know also that the present Minister of Health has recently been to Canada making inquiries and that he met a certain number of British pensioners there. I am sure he did his best in the course of a very quick tour, but I have had letters from pensioners there saying they did not think he stayed long enough or went carefully enough into a great many cases in order to realise how hard is their lot now. These British pensioners had pensions granted in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, but they live in a land where the dollar is the currency. I suggest it might be well for the Minister to go more carefully into this matter than may have been possible so far.
I hope the Minister will pay attention to the points which have been raised and will not take the attitude which has been taken—and which is the only complaint I have—that this request is an adverse attack on the Ministry. The request is made by the British Legion and many pensioners, as well as hon. Members, that the whole matter of pensions rights and the system should again be inquired into, if possible by an impartial Committee.

7.5 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Isaacs): I am very glad that this debate has taken place tonight, but I am sorry that it has taken place so soon after my taking the position of Minister of Pensions. It is no good my trying to convince the House that I can answer all the questions that have been put. If I tried hon. Members would know that I was fobbing them off. On the other hand, it gives me an opportunity of listening to various grievances—there have not been many—covering a number of cases and I make the promise to the House

immediately that every case that has been referred to tonight will be examined.
The debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale). I very much regret his disability, but it did not interfere with the ludicity and speed of his vocabulary. There are two things to which he referred and which have been running through the discussion this evening. The first was the tribute he paid to my predecessor, which I was very glad to hear. I was also glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) go further back to a Minister before my immediate predecessor, one who, as he is not now a Member of this House, we may mention by name, Mr. George Buchanan. That was a very well deserved tribute. I can assure the House that the spirit of George Buchanan and the others permeates the whole staff of the Ministry. I am sure that if I have not already absorbed it I shall absorb the same approach to the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, referred to the welfare services, and those services are also well deserving of the kind words he expressed. They are imbued with the desire to help those who go to them. My hon. Friend referred to the problem of finding work for some of our unemployed disabled persons, and on that matter I can speak with a little more comfort and assurance because, until a few days ago, one of my duties was to find work for disabled people through the Remploy Corporation and in other ways.
Reference must also be made to other organisations, the British Legion's "Blesma" and other voluntary organisations, which are very active in co-operating with the Ministry of Labour in finding work for these people. It is not the job of the Ministry of Pensions to put men into employment. I can speak with some little knowledge of the Department which deals with the employment of disabled persons, and I know that they look upon it as an important task. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) made reference to the case of a messenger at an employment exchange and I will look into that matter.
There is far more being done in a cheerful spirit by management in this country about the employment of disabled persons than is commonly recognised and appreciated. The Act of Parliament


dealing with the employment of disabled persons calls upon every employer in the country with a staff of more than 20 persons to engage 3 per cent. of disabled persons. By and large that 3 per cent. has been taken up. There are one or two cases of a special kind where it is not taken up for instance, no firm is expected to dismiss an able-bodied man in order to employ a disabled man, but, as soon as there is a vacancy, if the firm has not the 3 per cent. quota, it must take the disabled man to make up the quota. Many firms have far more than the 3 per cent. of disabled men.
My hon. Friend threw some doubt on whether the Government itself is doing its share in this field. There has not been time to look up the matter, but I can assure him and the House that the Government, in all its employment spheres, is well above the 3 per cent. If I remember rightly it is considerably over 5 per cent. That leaves a residue to be found employment which, as far as possible, is done through the Remploy organisation. On the other hand, there is not only the legal responsibility on employers to take the 3 per cent., but the disabled rehabilitation officers of the Ministry of Labour informed me, when I discussed this matter with them recently, that as a rule they find little difficulty in persuading an employer to give a chance to a disabled man.
My visits to factories throughout the country, Remploy and ordinary factories, have filled me with astonishment at the amount of work which a supposedly totally disabled man can do. Once a man is well into a job with a firm which is willing to take him there seem to be no obstacles which they cannot overcome. But the great value of this work is not only the finding of a job for the man but the fact that by doing so a man who has become disheartened, who feels that no one wants him, is turned into a man who is earning his own living, standing on his own feet, looking the world in the face again and who believes that he is now wanted although he is disabled. I can assure the House that that kind of work will be continued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) referred to the case of a death after a fairly recent examination. He would not expect me to give him an answer tonight, but I will look into

the matter and find out something about it. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, and myself are a little awkwardly placed tonight. He came and gave me notice as soon as he received permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment. He expected to have a little longer time to prepare his case and I anticipated having a little more time to prepare the answers and the information he desired, but matters have turned out otherwise. We have reached this stage of our proceedings earlier than we expected and we have not been able to take all these points into consideration.
The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) touched upon an important point about the vehicle service. That service is being overhauled. Attention will be given to providing better facilities where that is possible, but I am informed that the difficulty about providing a vehicle which will carry two persons is that without some special legislation such vehicles would come within another taxation class, and that might make matters difficult. However, the matter is being examined, and we will do what we can.

Mr. Leslie Hale: It is the intention of the Government to introduce a Budget this year. That will be an occasion when that point could be dealt with. I am sure it would be perfectly simple to examine it.

Mr. Isaacs: My hon. Friend must not, in the customary phrase, expect me to anticipate the Budget statement.
The hon. Member for Luton referred to the kind of reply which he gets about the cases he submits. He says that they are detailed and informative. I have had many of these letters before me. I have been pleased to see the great pains taken in each case to give the fullest possible information to the Member who had written about a case. I promise that that will continue and that any information which we give will be as full and as detailed as possible.
The House will not expect me tonight to supply a lot of detailed information. I have only been able to check two or three facets of the matter since the debate started. One of those is in respect of claims for unemployability supplement. Over 1,000 of these awards are being paid to limbless pensioners, which represents about 65 per cent. of the cases. That is


all very well, but 35 per cent. of the cases remain. They will be looked into.
The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield made reference to the additions to the scale which have made the Warrant rather complicated. I am being pressed today for additions to the scale, and if we keep on adding to it we must not complain, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not, that it is a little complicated. During the short time I have been at the Ministry I have been studying the Royal Warrant, and it has already given me a headache. One thing I have learned about it and its administration is the spirit in which it is approached in the Ministry. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) said that the Minister is governed by the Royal Warrant. That is so. I can act only within the terms of the Royal Warrant, but there is a nice little escape clause which gives the Minister discretion on many points.
What is more, in the earlier part of the Warrant I read that where there is any doubt, that doubt is to be exercised in favour of the applicant. I have found that to be the spirit of the Ministry. I have only had a short time to talk with the staff there but I have been impressed with the fact that they look at a case, not in the spirit of "What reason can we show why this man is not entitled to it?" but in the spirit of "What reasons can we find to entitle him to it?" I assure the House that where I have any discretion it will be exercised in the spirit of the Warrant, that is of giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt. We should try to find the necessary reasons why we should give and not withhold.

Sir G. Jeffreys: May I explain what I was trying to argue? It was that because this scale has become, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, a very complicated one, the case for an inquiry as to whether a new scale, a new Warrant, ought not to be substituted, is strengthened.

Mr. Isaacs: That is the remaining point to which I wish to refer. I have some recollection that this matter has been previously discussed in this House in some form, and I cannot express my views on

the subject without looking at that debate and finding out more about it. I do not think that we can lessen the complication of the Warrant itself if we are to keep on adding new claims. If we could meet all the points which have been put forward in this debate, and they were added to the Warrant, it would be more complicated. But no one will complain of these complications if there are a number of different cases to be dealt with.
I cannot give any assurance about any kind of inquiry, but if the House will give me an opportunity of trying to examine the whole purpose of the Warrant, I assure hon. Members, if they will forgive me the personal reference, that in the same way that I made the question of the Remploy factories for the employment of disabled persons a matter very dear to me at the Ministry of Labour—I saw it was of great value to the community—so I recognise that the duty of the State is involved in this matter. The Warrant has said that these people shall be taken care of. The only question is what is the limit of the people to be covered and the limit of the care they are to have.
I do not suppose that I can improve upon the humanity in the handling of these cases of my predecessors at the Ministry of Pensions, but I give the assurance that I will do all I can to maintain the standard. I welcome this discussion. I shall carefully consider every point which has been brought out and go into the questions with my advisory council, a very valuable body. I hope to meet them, I believe, tomorrow, and I shall consider at any time any proposals put forward in the hope of being able to say that a case has been made out which is good enough to win the support of this House and the Treasury. I thank hon. Members for their kindness to me while I have been making this wandering and discursive reply. I ask them to accept the will for the deed. I shall do the best I can about the matters that have been raised.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes past Seven o'Clock.